← All Phrases

“concealment of income”

PenaltySection 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)2,901 judgments

The decision most relied on for concealment of income is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on concealment of income

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · Supreme Court
953
citing judgments

A notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether penalty proceedings are for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such lack of specificity vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Ashok Pai v. CIT
292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court
812
citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court
791
citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT
434 ITR 1 · 2021 · High Court
672
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify the exact charge by not striking off the irrelevant limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income). Such an omnibus or vague notice renders the penalty proceedings bad in law, and any penalty imposed on its basis is liable to be quashed.

Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT
291 ITR 519 · 2007 · Supreme Court
565
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to strike out the inapplicable limb (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) from the standard proforma, indicating non-application of mind. The initial burden of proving concealment or inaccurate particulars rests on the Revenue.

CIT v. Kaushalya
216 ITR 660 · 1995 · High Court
511
citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not invalidated by the Assessing Officer's failure to strike off irrelevant portions in the show cause notice, provided the assessee understood the exact charge and suffered no prejudice, indicating an application of mind by the AO.

Judgments citing concealment of income

Ampa Palaniappan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non Corp Circle 2(1), Chennai

ITA 1370/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1370/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1371/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ampa Palaniappan Acit बनाम/ Non-Corporate Circle-2(1) 48/19, Raman Street, T. Nagar Vs. Chennai. Chennai-600 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aippp-3546-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) -Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Mukundan (Jcit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) -Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Mukundan (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee’s quantum appeal was dismissed, Ld. AO levied penalty of Rs.48.40 Lacs vide order dated 05-02-2022 on the allegation of concealment of income. During appeal proceedings, the assessee, inter-alia, relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts ... bench held as under: - 6. We are of the considered opinion that the two limbs viz. ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’ and ‘concealment of income’ are separate and distinct charges. It is quite clear that though impugned penalty has been initiated in the assessment order, however, in the notice

Parry Infrastructure Co P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly-allowed

ITA 1653/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Philip George, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

income in this case comes to Rs.45,91,25,185/-, Based on the above discussion, I am satisfied that the appellant has concealed its income and so also furnished inaccurate particulars of income for evading taxes as understood in terms of provisions contained in section ... enhancement to the income returned. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) are therefore, initiated on both counts viz., concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.” Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us Ld. Sr.Counsel, Shri Pillip George argued on behalf of assessee

M/S. Mukka Proteins Limited (Formerly Know As Mukka Sea Food Industries Ltd., Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 431/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

that the additional income offered in 153A returns is only to co-operate with the department and same should not be inferred as concealment of income. The ld. A.R. placed reliance on the judgement of Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs Interseas ITA.No

Khanna Infrabuild Private Limited 2000-1A, Sukhdev Nagar Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2 Ludhiana, Ludhiana

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 679/CHANDI/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jun 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 145(3)Section 153ASection 35ASection 69

Court in CITv. Smt. Suraj Devi [2010] 328 ITR 604 wherein this Court held that the primary burden of proof with regard to concealment of income was on the revenue and it was only when the said burden was discharged that reliance could be placed on the valuation report

Khanna Infrabuild Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle)-2, Ludhiana

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 668/CHANDI/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jun 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 145(3)Section 153ASection 35ASection 69

Court in CITv. Smt. Suraj Devi [2010] 328 ITR 604 wherein this Court held that the primary burden of proof with regard to concealment of income was on the revenue and it was only when the said burden was discharged that reliance could be placed on the valuation report

Khanna Infrabuild Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle)-2 Ludhiana, Ludhiana

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 663/CHANDI/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 145(3)Section 153ASection 35ASection 69

Court in CITv. Smt. Suraj Devi [2010] 328 ITR 604 wherein this Court held that the primary burden of proof with regard to concealment of income was on the revenue and it was only when the said burden was discharged that reliance could be placed on the valuation report

Anil Assudomal Manghnani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1328/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Advocate/Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

bank account. The AO in the Assessment Order also recorded the satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings on the limb of concealment of income and subsequently issued the notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The assessee challenged the said addition of Rs.6 ... estimate basis, no penalty is leviable. Secondly even otherwise the satisfaction was recorded for initiating the penalty on the limb i.e. concealment of income, however, ultimately the AO levied the penalty for filing of inaccurate particulars of income and therefore penalty is un-sustainable. 7. On the contrary Mr. Manoj

Jeetendra Chandrakant Nayak, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Incom Tax(OSD), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 368/NAG/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri M.G.Moryani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Singhai, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

added to the returned income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings under section 27(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income are hereby initiated.” 4. The appellant filed an appeal before the CIT (A), who has held as follows

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Shakuntlam Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

ITA 697/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2024AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik, CIT &
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)

total project profits and what are to be included. It is more a technical issue and legal issue of concept, not an actual concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. It is based on the appellant's own disicoure of figures and estimation of likely profits. Therefore, in such ... thereof based on sales and advances for the year. It is more a technical issue and legal issue of concept, not an actual concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. He relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dilip N Shroff Vs. DCIT

Aadinath Securities Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 4(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4004/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi-CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 694Section 69C

income from derivative transactions and submitted relevant documents in this regard. The assessee further submitted before the AO that there is no concealment of income on the part of the assessee with regard to the impugned transaction and therefore, there cannot be any addition towards the same. The AO however

Vinod Gugnani, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-30(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3764/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee u/s 54 of the Act and sustained the other disallowances made by Assessing Officer.

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

construction and improvement. The Assessing Officer proceeded to impose the penalty of Rs.6,91,583/- being 100% of the tax alleged to have concealed taxable income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred the appeal before ... have got away with the tax evasion and, therefore, penalty was levied. The spirit of section 271(1)(c) of the Act says "concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income". Now the judicial pronouncements are absolutely clear that if in the return of income certain mistake

Mukesh Khurana, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4710/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271ASection 274

very casually used the proforma used for issuing notice before levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the Section 271AAB of the Act in the notice it does not talk anything about the provision ... merely and casually issued the proforma used for issuing notice before levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. More fatally, the notice merely mentions section 271AAB of the Act but does not provide the specific charges

Rita Hemchand Gandhi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office. Int Tax Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4839/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty can be levied. c) The appellant further submits that several judicial pronouncements have held that bonafide mistakes do not constitute the concealment of Income.” In respect of penalty of ₹ 1,52,084/- imposed u/s. 271(1)(c), the 3. moot point raised before us is that no addition ... assessee was detected only during the course of scrutiny proceedings which otherwise would have escaped assessment and therefore this amounts to concealment of income. He, further referred to clause (c) of Explanation 4 for computing the amount of tax sought to be evaded and levied a penalty

Suresh Chand Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3666/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

response to notice under section 153C following search, which income was not disclosed in original return, it was a clear case of concealment of income attracting penalty under section 271(1)(c); in such a case it was unnecessary to invoke Explanation 5 to section ... search conducted and hence, such disclosure cannot be said to be "voluntary". Hence, in the A.O.'s opinion, the assessee had "concealed" his income. However, the mere fact that the assessee has filed revised returns disclosing higher income than in the original return, in the absence of any other incriminating

Amit Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3665/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

response to notice under section 153C following search, which income was not disclosed in original return, it was a clear case of concealment of income attracting penalty under section 271(1)(c); in such a case it was unnecessary to invoke Explanation 5 to section ... search conducted and hence, such disclosure cannot be said to be "voluntary". Hence, in the A.O.'s opinion, the assessee had "concealed" his income. However, the mere fact that the assessee has filed revised returns disclosing higher income than in the original return, in the absence of any other incriminating

Amit Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT Central Circle-16, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3664/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

response to notice under section 153C following search, which income was not disclosed in original return, it was a clear case of concealment of income attracting penalty under section 271(1)(c); in such a case it was unnecessary to invoke Explanation 5 to section ... search conducted and hence, such disclosure cannot be said to be "voluntary". Hence, in the A.O.'s opinion, the assessee had "concealed" his income. However, the mere fact that the assessee has filed revised returns disclosing higher income than in the original return, in the absence of any other incriminating

B.K. Sales Corporation, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 36(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1498/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S. B.K. Sales Corporation, Vs. Acit, Circle 36 (1), D-1, Gf 5, Virat Bhawan, New Delhi. Commercial Complex, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, New Delhi – 110 009. (Pan : Aaafb4846K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca Shri Ankur Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2024 Date Of Order : 26.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-12, New Delhi Dated 06.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. Revenue : Disallowance Of Service Charges/Commission Paid To Six Hufs Rs.3196047 – A. The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Ignored I. The Basic Fact Of The Assessee Being A Service Recipient Getting Such Services From Various Unrelated Entities.

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

level of business activities be deleted. 3. Re : Initiation of Penalty Proceedings : The Ld Assessing Officer’s unlawfully initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income u/s 271(1)(c) should be withdrawn. 3. The Ld Assessing Officer has been unlawful, unjust, prejudicial against the principles of natural justice, ignoring

Ram Prasad Sooda, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 13/VIZ/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.13/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2014-15) Ram Prasad Sooda Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.39-7-39/1, Sector-7 Ward-2(1) Murali Nagar Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Amups8258A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.Kalyana Sundar, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

initiated penalty proceedings and levied penalty at Rs.10,97,703/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the penalty

Uttamchand Hastimal Jain, Vijayapura vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1and 2, Tps, Vijayapur

ITA 567/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavuttamchand Hastimal Jain The Income Tax Officer Prop. Of Sumatinath Traders Ward - 1 & 2 (Tps) Kirana Bazar Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Vijayapura 586101 Near All India Raido Pan – Addpj2783P Athani Road, Vijayapura 586104 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Prasanna N. Urala, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2003-24/1061137028(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 19.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-05. 2. Facts Leading To The Filing Of Present Appeal Are, The Assessee Is An Individual Running A Kirana Shop In Vijayapura, Karnataka. For The Impugned Assessment Year He Has Filed His Return Of Income(Roi) Declaring An Income Of Rs 4,72,780/- On 31.10.2014. Thereafter, An Information, Revealing That Assessee Had Deposited An Amount Of Rs. 3,10,13,708/- In Its Bank Account With Shri Gurubasava Urban Credit Souharda Co-Op. Ltd, Surfaced With Department. Accordingly The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 2 Uttamchand Hastimal Jain 148 Of The Vide Notice Dated 31.03.2021. In Response To The 148 Notice The Assessee Filed A Revised Computation Of Income Declaring An Income Of Rs 21,68,535/-. While Concluding The Assessment The Ao Accepted The Revised Computation Without Any Demur. However, The Ao Simultaneously, Initiated Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Alleging That Assessee Has Concealed His Income. Afterwards, The Ao Vide Its Order Dated 26.09.2022, Levied Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna N. Urala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 2Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

computation without any demur. However, the AO simultaneously, initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act alleging that assessee has concealed his income. Afterwards, the AO vide its order dated 26.09.2022, levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with the order ... would not have been reopened, the assessee could not have disclosed the additional income and hence it is a clear cut case for concealment of income and hence penalty levied is justifiable. 6. After considering the rival submissions, we observe that admittedly in this case the revised computation filed

Shubh Karan Baid., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-4(3), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 836/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by AO wherein the penalty of Rs. 1,21,855/- was imposed for concealing the income. 2 I.T.A. No.836/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shubh Karan Baid 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income ... initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c ) without recording any satisfaction framing the charge whether the initiation of penalty proceedings was for concealment of income or for filing inaccurate particulars of income though in the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) dated 18.12.2019 the AO stated that “It appears