← 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

Bmw Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Kolkata

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2586/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan &For Respondent: Shri Ms. Archana Gupta, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

inaccurate, the liability would arise. In Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 6 SCC 329, this Court explained the terms "concealment of income" and "furnishing inaccurate particulars". The Court went on to hold therein that in order to attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c), mens ... Assessing Officer had correctly reached the conclusion that since the assessee had claimed excessive deductions knowing that they are incorrect; it amounted to concealment of income. It was tried to be argued that the falsehood in accounts can take either of the two forms; (i) an item of receipt

Bmw Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Kolkata

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2585/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan &For Respondent: Shri Ms. Archana Gupta, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

inaccurate, the liability would arise. In Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 6 SCC 329, this Court explained the terms "concealment of income" and "furnishing inaccurate particulars". The Court went on to hold therein that in order to attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c), mens ... Assessing Officer had correctly reached the conclusion that since the assessee had claimed excessive deductions knowing that they are incorrect; it amounted to concealment of income. It was tried to be argued that the falsehood in accounts can take either of the two forms; (i) an item of receipt

Sandip Jhunjhunwala, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed and that of Revenue is dismissed”

ITA 2483/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsian &For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(2)Section 271A

order to apply the penal provisions of section 271(1)© it is to be necessarily inferred that there is positive act of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income by the assessee.” It is further held that “The Department had simply rested its conclusion ... under section 271(1)© of the Income-tax Act, 1961, may be decided on the merits, did not amount to an admission of concealment of income and the levy of penalty on such basis was liable to be quashed.” From the above, it is clear that penalty cannot be levied

Nitin Harilal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

ITA 6536/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

assessment u/s. 147 with assessed income of Rs. Rs.1,01,00,000/-. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) was also initiated for concealment of income. 4. Being aggrieved with aforesaid order of AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), but, after discussion and deliberations Appeal of assessee

Pramod Kumar Gupta, Bhopal vs. DCIT Circle 5 (1)- Bhopal, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed, penalty is

ITA 690/IND/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

details called for that too deliberately and with consciously is nothing but an attempt to avoid further investigation by the departinent and thereby conceal the income. Further, once book result is rejected under section section 145/73) of the Act, the estimation of profit is only option left before AO. Therefore ... cannot be said that the addition was made purely on guess or estimation basis. In fact, it is a fit case or concealment of income as no details were produced at the time of assessment proceedings. As far as lack of opportunities is concerned, the AO had issued a notice

Axis Bank Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1125/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

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

clearly specify the limb under which penalty proceeding was initiated, i.e. whether it was for ‘concealment of income’ or for ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’. He submitted that in the absence of the clear specification in the notice the penalty order cannot be sustained. He relied upon the following decisions ... false. The parameters for judging justification for addition in the assessment proceeding are different from the penalty imposed on account of concealment of income or filing inaccurate particulars of income. Merely because the addition was confirmed in appeal, the same ITA No. 1121/Ahd/2025 to ITA No. 1125/Ahd/2025 Axis Bank

Axis Bank Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1124/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

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

clearly specify the limb under which penalty proceeding was initiated, i.e. whether it was for ‘concealment of income’ or for ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’. He submitted that in the absence of the clear specification in the notice the penalty order cannot be sustained. He relied upon the following decisions ... false. The parameters for judging justification for addition in the assessment proceeding are different from the penalty imposed on account of concealment of income or filing inaccurate particulars of income. Merely because the addition was confirmed in appeal, the same ITA No. 1121/Ahd/2025 to ITA No. 1125/Ahd/2025 Axis Bank

Axis Bank Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1123/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

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

clearly specify the limb under which penalty proceeding was initiated, i.e. whether it was for ‘concealment of income’ or for ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’. He submitted that in the absence of the clear specification in the notice the penalty order cannot be sustained. He relied upon the following decisions ... false. The parameters for judging justification for addition in the assessment proceeding are different from the penalty imposed on account of concealment of income or filing inaccurate particulars of income. Merely because the addition was confirmed in appeal, the same ITA No. 1121/Ahd/2025 to ITA No. 1125/Ahd/2025 Axis Bank

Axis Bank Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1122/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

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

clearly specify the limb under which penalty proceeding was initiated, i.e. whether it was for ‘concealment of income’ or for ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’. He submitted that in the absence of the clear specification in the notice the penalty order cannot be sustained. He relied upon the following decisions ... false. The parameters for judging justification for addition in the assessment proceeding are different from the penalty imposed on account of concealment of income or filing inaccurate particulars of income. Merely because the addition was confirmed in appeal, the same ITA No. 1121/Ahd/2025 to ITA No. 1125/Ahd/2025 Axis Bank

Axis Bank Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1121/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

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

clearly specify the limb under which penalty proceeding was initiated, i.e. whether it was for ‘concealment of income’ or for ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’. He submitted that in the absence of the clear specification in the notice the penalty order cannot be sustained. He relied upon the following decisions ... false. The parameters for judging justification for addition in the assessment proceeding are different from the penalty imposed on account of concealment of income or filing inaccurate particulars of income. Merely because the addition was confirmed in appeal, the same ITA No. 1121/Ahd/2025 to ITA No. 1125/Ahd/2025 Axis Bank

Tomar & Brothers, Etawah vs. Income Tax Officer 2(2)(5) Etawah, Etawah

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

ITA 440/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 41(1)Section 68

made addition u/s. 41(1) of the Act. Since the information have already been placed on record, it cannot be termed as concealment of income or inaccurate particulars of income. 6. In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court

Klin Industries, Sandha Khamidana, Junagadh vs. The ACIT, Circle, Junagadh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 857/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot15 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 273BSection 80J

notice issued by the assessing officer under section 271(1) (c ) of the Act, is vague and defective as no limb of either concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, have been specified in the penalty notice. Therefore, learned Counsel submitted that the penalty order is invalid ... specific limb “concealment of income” or “inaccurate particulars” is not ITA No. 857/Rjt/2025 A.Y 14-15 Klin Industries clearly identified nor supported by a clear finding in the assessment order, hence, penalty levied by the assessing officer may be deleted. 7. The Learned Counsel further submitted that it is unintentional

M/S Solitairian Buildinfra (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3833/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Section 132Section 153CSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

impugned penalty order and that too without recording the mandatory ‘satisfaction’ as per law and without levying a clear charge whether there was ‘ concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’. 5. That having to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred ... penalty order has mentioned the facts that the penalty levied u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act for concealment of income. Since the matter is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, we quashed the penalty order levied by AO. The ground no 4 raised

Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited, Gadarpur vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Kashipur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 101/DDN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Ms. Gurkiran Kaur, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

which has attained finality. Both the learned lower authorities hold in this factual backdrop that the above disallowance is an instance of concealment of income at the assessee’s behest attracting section 271(1)(c) in issue. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee

Prime Products Limited, Kanpur vs. D.C.I.T. Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 514/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 M/S Prime Products Ltd., 87/8, Kalpi Vs. The Dy. Cit, Road, Kanpur Circle-2(1)(1), Kanpur Pan: Aaacp8239K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac In Confirming The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Levied By The Ld. Assessing Officer On 23.01.2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That On The Facts & In Law, The Order Passed By Ld. Cit (Appeals), Nfac U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad In Law. 2 That On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Upholding Action Of Learned Ao In Levying Penalty Of Rs. 94,000/- Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 That On The Facts & In Law, The Notice Issued For Levy Of Penalty Under Section 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) Dated 14/02/2020 Is Vague & Defective Since, It Does Not Specify The Limb Under Which Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Was Initiated. 4 That On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac Has Erred In Not Appreciating That The Assessee Had Offered An Explanation. The Penalty Proceedings & The Consequent Order Are Invalid & Void Ab Initio As The Same Were Initiated & Levied Solely On The Basis Of An Affidavit Without Independent Evidence Of Concealment.

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE OF CONCEALMENT. 1 Prime Products Limited A.Y. 2013-14 5 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) NFAC HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT "CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OF RS. 3,13,000/- WAS NEITHER DELIBERATE NOR INTENTIONAL, HENCE THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 6 THAT THE ALLEGED

Vijay Balbhim Pise, Solapur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Solapur

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 195/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.195/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Vijay Balbhim Pise, Vs Ito Ward 1(2), 110, Railway Lines, Solapur- Solapur 413001 Maharashtra Pan-Ajgpp4660A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Soni (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

erred in initiating penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for concealment of income which was based on the additions made on the basis of estimation of fair market value of the land based on deeming fiction as provided in Section

Damyanti Atul Shah, King Circle vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(1)(1) Mumbai, Lalbaug

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 5891/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ryan Saldhana,ARFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, (CIT DR)
Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

return of income since she was not aware of the provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961. e There was no deliberate concealment of income. 3. In the instant case, the assessee had not filed her return of income for the year. Her case was re-opened ... total income at Rs.1,12,82,588/- treating the above amounts as undisclosed income. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was also initiated for concealment of income. However, the assessee did not file any reply Page |3 ITA No. 5891/Mum/2025 AY. 2013-14 Damyanti Atul Shah, Mumbai in response

Zenith Portfolio and Insurance Advisors Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 03, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2508/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 153D

undisclosed income to the tune of Rs. 33 crores has been detected in the case of M/s Olympus Realtors (P) Ltd. resulting into concealment of income.” 12. Respectfully following the above decision, we are inclined to come to a conclusion that satisfaction note recorded by the AO is vague

Zenith Portfolio and Insurance Advisors Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Dentral Circle - 03, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2507/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 153D

undisclosed income to the tune of Rs. 33 crores has been detected in the case of M/s Olympus Realtors (P) Ltd. resulting into concealment of income.” 12. Respectfully following the above decision, we are inclined to come to a conclusion that satisfaction note recorded by the AO is vague

Zenith Portfolio and Insurance Advisors Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-03, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2506/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 153D

undisclosed income to the tune of Rs. 33 crores has been detected in the case of M/s Olympus Realtors (P) Ltd. resulting into concealment of income.” 12. Respectfully following the above decision, we are inclined to come to a conclusion that satisfaction note recorded by the AO is vague