“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

Swatipushp Dealers Pvt. Ltd.(Since Merged With Snowtemp Commercial Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-11(2), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 258/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Swatipushp Dealers Pvt. Ltd.,……………………Appellant (Since Merged With Snowtemp Commercial Pvt. Ltd.) 101, 1St Floor, 18, Prince Anwar Shah Road, Kolkata-700033 [Pan:Aapcs5069P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………...…Respondent Ward-11(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Abhishak Bansal, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Loviesh Shelley, Jcit, D.R. Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 11, 2024 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

this order. 3 Swatipushp Dealers Pvt. Ltd. (since merged with Snowtemp Commercial Pvt. Ltd.) Penalty proceeding u/s. 271(l)(c) initiated separately for concealed unaccounted income of Rs. 8,91,00,000/-. (DEVENDRA NATH MISHRA) Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Kolkata”. This finding has been vacated by the Tribunal ... Snowtemp Commercial Pvt. Ltd.) 9. Sub-clause (iii) of section 271(1)(c) reads as under:- “Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. 271:- (1) If the Assessing Officer or the Joint Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in the course

Surendra Rameshwardas Gadodia, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the addition of total amount of Rs

ITA 4855/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R Singh – Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Dinesh R Chourasia Sr. AR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

initiated for 7 ITA No. 4855/MUM.2023 SURENDRA R. GADODIA furnishing inaccurate particulars of income with a view to concealment of income.” 7. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available in record. The issue was squarely covered by the order of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the same

Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chamber vs. Mukesh Hirachand Sanghvi, Mumbai

In the result, the revenue’s appeal ITA no

ITA 3514/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(C)

Learned Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income leading to the concealment of income. Assessee preferred an appeal against the assessment order dated 27.03.2015 before Leaned CIT(A), who restricted the 100% addition to the extent

Income Tax Officer-19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mukesh Hirachand Sanghvi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands

ITA 3510/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 36(1)(iii)

Learned Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income leading to the concealment of income. Assessee preferred an appeal against the assessment order dated 27.03.2015 before Learned CIT(A), who restricted the 100% addition to the extent

Jmd International, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1138/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble& Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2017-18 Jmd International, 57 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Chamber, Devji Ratansey Marg, Masjid East, Mumbai – 400 009 Pan:Aahfj-7718-H - Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Jangid –CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

said Syndicate Bank account have been duly disclosed in the books of second Partnership firm. Accordingly, it was submitted that there was no concealment of income as perceived by the Assessing Officer. However, the ld.CIT(A) was not convinced with the submissions made by the assessee for the reason that

Sh. Jagmohan Singh, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 421/CHANDI/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

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

head “long term capital gains”. Separately, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income resulting in concealment of income by the assessee. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dt. 22/01/2013 has confirmed

Abbasbhai Sajaudinbhai Barad, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1012/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69A

erred both in law and on facts in initiating the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w.s 274 of the Act for concealment of income. The appellant prays that the proceedings for the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271[1][c] be dropped. 10. Appellant also craves leave

Nallasamy Mohanraj, Erode vs. ITO, Wrd-2(3), Erode

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

ITA 112/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 112/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Nallasamy Mohanraj, The Income Tax Officer, 23, Bhajan Street, Nadupalayam, Vs. Ward 2(3), Vellottamparappu Post Office, Erode. Erode – 638 154. Pan: Aozpm 4517R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

case, the AO comes to a conclusion or he is satisfied that this is a fit case for levy of penalty for concealment of income in term of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced

Lyka Labs Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 1417/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar Beig

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271(1)(c) of the Act submitted that the AO has not specified whether the penalty has been levied for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The learned AR in support of his submission placed reliance upon various decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High

Lyka Labs Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 1416/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar Beig

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Lyka Labs Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 1415/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar Beig

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Mohamed Imran Mohamed Siddique Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 26(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2900/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271F

income of the assessee. Accordingly, total income was arrived at (Rs. 4,98,020+9010175= 9508195). Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) for concealment of income and _ penalty proceeding u/s. 271F for failing the file return were also initiated separately. . Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred appeal before learned

DCIT, Circle- 1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Genpact Services Llc, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 899/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Delhi06 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Banita Devi Naorem, CIT-DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

notice under section 274 should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) of the Act, i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy ... Jurisdictional High Court, since the AO has not been specified u/s 274 as to whether penalty is proposed for alleged ‘concealment of income’ OR ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income’, the penalty levied is hereby obliterated. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order Pronounced

M/S Happy Steel Private Ltd., Ludhiana vs. DCIT CC-2, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 398/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271A

observed by the ld. CIT(A), the Finance Act, 2012 inserted Section 271AAB in the Act, which provided for levy of penalty for concealment of income for the specified period at different rates; that the rates vary from 10% to 90%, depending on whether the undisclosed income has been admitted ... other conditions; that the perusal of the said section reveals that the penalty u/s 271AAB is levied only for concealment of income and the rates of levy of penalty vary according to the level of compliance made by the assessee with respect to undisclosed income; that hence, specifying the limb

DCIT, CC-4(2), Kolkata vs. Tharur Bhaskaran, Kolkata

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 590/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

leviable under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. This clause reads as under:- “Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. 271.(1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under ... quite clear, that 'suppressiovari', or 'suppression of truth', which has, in section 271(1)(c)of the IT Act, as its equivalent, 'concealment of income', and suggestiofalsi', literally, 'suggesting or stating a falsehood', which manifests itself as 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof, are two distinctly separate charges; that leveling