← 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

Ibm Japan Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 492/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

course of the reassessment proceedings. e) Reason for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act (i. e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A ... where in similar circumstances it was held that the initial burden lies on the revenue to establish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid finding, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner

Ibm Canada Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 491/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

Section 271(1)(c)

course of the reassessment proceedings. e) Reason for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act (i. e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A ... where in similar circumstances it was held that the initial burden lies on the revenue to establish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid finding, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner

Ibm Canada Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 490/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

course of the reassessment proceedings. e) Reason for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act (i.e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A ... where in similar circumstances it was held that the_initial burden _lies_on_the revenue to establish that _the_assessee_had concealed the income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. ........ Therefore, in view of the aforesaid finding, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner

Ibm Canada Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 489/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

Section 271

course of the reassessment proceedings. e) Reason for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act (i. e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A ... where in similar circumstances it was held that the initial burden lies on the revenue to establish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid finding, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner

Ibm Australia Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation-Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 488/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

course of the reassessment proceedings. e) Reason for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act (i. e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A ... where in similar circumstances it was held that the initial burden lies on the revenue to establish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid finding, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner

Ibm Australia Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation-Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 487/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

Section 271

course of the reassessment proceedings. e) Reason for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act (i. e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A ... where in similar circumstances it was held that the initial burden lies on the revenue to establish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid finding, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner

Model Sales Agency Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 5(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, in terms of paragraph 9 above, the appeal preferred

ITA 388/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3

that the mandatory criteria for levying of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not fulfilled as there is neither concealment of income not furnishing of in accurate particulars. 4. On the facts and in law, Ld. AO failed to appreciate that Penalty proceedings are separate from

Maheshkumar Hargovind Goyal, Nagpur vs. Ward 1(2), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 322/NAG/2023[AY 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 May 2024

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

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

treated as unexplained bank credit from undisclosed sources. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, were also initiated for concealment of income. The assessee being aggrieved carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 5. During the course of first appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) issued

Smt. Kavita Sachdev, Indore vs. ITO-3(4), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 255/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2011-12 Smt. Kavita Sachdev, Income-Tax Officer, 112,Jairampur Colony, 3(4), बनाम/ Indore. Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan : Arcps6793D Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2024

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

submitted that the assessee has paid self-assessment tax voluntarily much prior to the notice issued u/s 148 and, therefore, there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on the part of the assessee. Further, the return of income filed by the assessee was accepted

General Electric International Inc., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, International Taxation Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3498/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Veerbhandra Mahajan
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on account of concealment of income, without appreciating the fact as under- a) The Ld. AO has levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account on furnishing ... income of assessee or assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. It is not Revenue's case that there was any concealment of income. The entire basis is that by initially filing the return of income showing gain 9 made from the sale of the property at Bangalore

K J Somaiya and Sons Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4241/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year :2015-16 K J Somaiya & Sons Private Limited, 45-47, Somaiya Bhavan, M.G Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaack-1894-K ---- Appellant Vs. Acit -2(2)(1),Mumbai Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. --- Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri P.D.Chougule, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Officer, the assessee contended that it had disclosed all details relating to acquisition of tenancy right and accordingly, contended that there was no concealment of income as alleged by the AO. Accordingly, it was contended that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. The Assessing Officer ... assessee.In this regard, the Assessing Officer observed that withdrawal of depreciation on tenancy right by the assessee is voluntary admission of concealment of income by the assessee. Accordingly, he levied penalty of Rs.4,23,464/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The CIT(A) also confirmed the penalty

DCIT (It)3(3)(2), Mumbai, Air India Bldg vs. Amrita Jhaveri, Mumbai

In the result, all the grounds of both these appeals are dismissed

ITA 3637/MUM/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Ashwin DamaniaFor Respondent: Shri. Anil Sant (SR. DR.)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

being added in the hands of the assessee. Based on the assessment proceedings, the penalty notices were issued on 31st March, 2015, for concealment of income. Subsequent to that penalty orders were passed on ITA No.3636 & 3637/MUM/2023 Amrita Jhaveri; A. Y.2006-07 & 2007-08 30th September, 2015, levying the penalty

DCIT It 3 3 2 Mumbai, Air India Building vs. Amrita Jhaveri, Mumbai

In the result, all the grounds of both these appeals are dismissed

ITA 3636/MUM/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Ashwin DamaniaFor Respondent: Shri. Anil Sant (SR. DR.)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

being added in the hands of the assessee. Based on the assessment proceedings, the penalty notices were issued on 31st March, 2015, for concealment of income. Subsequent to that penalty orders were passed on ITA No.3636 & 3637/MUM/2023 Amrita Jhaveri; A. Y.2006-07 & 2007-08 30th September, 2015, levying the penalty

Krishan Kumar Tarachand, Pune vs. ITO (It) Ward -2, Pune

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

ITA 513/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.513/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Krishan Kumar Tarachand, Vs. Ito (It), Ward-2, Pune. Flat No.4, Anupam Apartments, Nda Pashan Road, Bavdhan Khurd, Pune- 411021 Pan : Abupd4503C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.07.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. (A) The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Erred In Law & In Facts In Dismissing The Appeal Filed Against Penalty Order U/S. 271(1)(C) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.06.2018 Merely On The Premise That The Appeal Was Filed Belatedly & Without Providing Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. (B) The Ld. Nfac Erred In Law In Dismissing The Appeal Filed Against Penalty Order U/S. 271(1)(C) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.06.2018 Levying A Penalty Of Rs.6,09,760/- Without

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

taxable income under the head “Long Term Capital Gains”. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. Subsequently vide order dated 25-06-2018 penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act of Rs.6,09,760/- was imposed

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Imi Alloys Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4367/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

entire addition right from assessment stage to the Tribunal was merely on estimations. There is no definite finding on the quantum of concealment of income. It is an accepted legal position that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act levied on additions made merely on estimations is unsustainable ... been sustained, the application of adhoc GP it cannot be said that it is a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income and accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty is upheld and consequently the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Imi Alloys Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4366/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

entire addition right from assessment stage to the Tribunal was merely on estimations. There is no definite finding on the quantum of concealment of income. It is an accepted legal position that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act levied on additions made merely on estimations is unsustainable ... been sustained, the application of adhoc GP it cannot be said that it is a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income and accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty is upheld and consequently the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Imi Alloys Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4365/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

entire addition right from assessment stage to the Tribunal was merely on estimations. There is no definite finding on the quantum of concealment of income. It is an accepted legal position that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act levied on additions made merely on estimations is unsustainable ... been sustained, the application of adhoc GP it cannot be said that it is a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income and accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty is upheld and consequently the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara vs. M/S. Neotech Education Foundation, Vadodara

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 47/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 260ASection 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271D

Rs.16,25,46,276/-. While finalising the assessment, the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of income on the issues appearing at Sl. Nos.1 to 7 and 10 as well as initiated penalty for furnishing inaccurate particular of income on the issues ... submitted that the Assessing Officer imposed penalty under Section 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.1,31,79,630/- for concealment of income to the tune of Rs.4,06,21,446/- on the additions sustained by the CIT(A). The quantum of sustained addition is as follows : Sr. Description of Additions

The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara vs. M/S. Neotech Education Foundation, Vadodara

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 192/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 260ASection 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271D

Rs.16,25,46,276/-. While finalising the assessment, the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of income on the issues appearing at Sl. Nos.1 to 7 and 10 as well as initiated penalty for furnishing inaccurate particular of income on the issues ... submitted that the Assessing Officer imposed penalty under Section 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.1,31,79,630/- for concealment of income to the tune of Rs.4,06,21,446/- on the additions sustained by the CIT(A). The quantum of sustained addition is as follows : Sr. Description of Additions

M/S. Neotech Education Foundation, Vadodara vs. The Jt.CIT, Central Range, Vadodara

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 109/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 260ASection 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271D

Rs.16,25,46,276/-. While finalising the assessment, the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of income on the issues appearing at Sl. Nos.1 to 7 and 10 as well as initiated penalty for furnishing inaccurate particular of income on the issues ... submitted that the Assessing Officer imposed penalty under Section 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.1,31,79,630/- for concealment of income to the tune of Rs.4,06,21,446/- on the additions sustained by the CIT(A). The quantum of sustained addition is as follows : Sr. Description of Additions