← 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

Sharad Bhaskarrao Gaikwad, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 917/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.917/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sharad Bhaskarrao Gaikwad, The Income Tax T.No.1, Vanai Apartment, V Officer, Gangapur Road, Behind S Nashik. Kulswamini Apart, Nashik – 422005. Pan: Adspg2339R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Miss Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar-Ca, Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 02.05.2023 Emanating From Penalty Order Dated 17.02.2022 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Submission Of Ld.Ar : 2. The Ld.Authorised Representative(Ld.Ar) Of The Assessee Filed Written Submission. Vide Written Submission Ld.Ar Invited Our Sharad Bhaskarrao Gaikwad [A] Attention To The Notice Dated 24.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 Issued By Assessing Officer(Ao) Which Was The First Notice With Reference To The Penalty. Ld.Ar In The Written Submission Explained That Nowhere In The Notice Section 271(1)(C) Is Mentioned. Nowhere In The Notice, The Assessing Officer Has Clarified, Whether It Is For Concealment Of Income Or For Filing Inaccurate Particulars.

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

nowhere in the notice section 271(1)(c) is mentioned. Nowhere in the notice, the Assessing Officer has clarified, whether it is for concealment of income or for filing inaccurate particulars. 2.1 The ld.AR filed copy of show cause notice dated 01.01.2022 for A.Y.2016-17 and pleaded in the written submission ... that even in this notice, there is no mention whether assessee has concealed the income or has filed inaccurate particulars of income. 2.2 Therefore, the ld.AR pleaded that there is no application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Ld.AR relied on the order of the ITAT Pune. 2.3 Ld.AR explained

DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Eka Software Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 977/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojarind Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Eka Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Building 2A, East Tower, Bengaluru. Vrindavan Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarbeesanhalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru – 575 001. Pan : Aabce 3660 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ajay Rotti, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

were initiated and penalty was levied. It must be noted that the addition in the assessment proceedings was on an estimation basis and concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars has not been established by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. In support

Leapfrog, Gulmohar Park vs. ITO, Ward 29(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1774/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaleapfrog, Vs. Ito, Ward 29 (1), A-14, Third Floor, New Delhi. Gulmohar Park, New Delhi – 110 049. (Pan : Aaatl3565D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitin Kanwar, Advocate Shri Rajeev Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2024 Date Of Order : 14.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Kanwar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 271(1)(c)Section 3

income and penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing the particulars of income. On the issue of concealment of income, the assessee has submitted that tax was deducted on the receipts and therefore, there is no concealment. Further, assessee submitted that it must ... assessed tax of Rs.21,61,647/-. 3 Further, in the assessed tax, various interests have not been included. So, there is very much concealment of income and thereby that of tax too by the assessee. Taking a lenient view, as the assessee was cooperative during the last stage

Apl Apollo Tubes Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2971/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 115Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

relevant limb of the charge was not specified i.e. whether the penalty is initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or for concealment of income and, therefore, the penalty order is bad in law. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ... limb for which the notice was issued. In other words, the Assessing Officer has not specified whether the penalty notice was issued for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. Identical issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case

Girirajiji Raghunandan Shiksha Prasar and Vikas Samiti, Indore vs. ITO ( Exemption), Bhopal

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 342/IND/2023[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Indore13 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Girirajji Income-Tax Officer Raghunandan Shiksha (Exemption), Prasar & Vikas Samiti, Bhopal बनाम/ 45, Vaishali Nagar, Vs. Kotra Sultanabad, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaba59632G Assessee By Shri S.N.Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2024

Section 115BSection 147Section 250

erred in initiating reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in absence of any tangible material and live link of concealment of income and merely on the basis of borrowed opinion without independent application of mind. (iv) That on the facts and in the circumstances

Paramount Villas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-76, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3446/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshparamount Villas Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Jcit, 208, Second Floor, Sikkha Range-76, Mansion Lsc, Savita New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagcm6447E

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 272(2)(g)Section 272A(2)(g)Section 275(1)

577/2018, Rishikesh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. may be referred to, which reads as under:- "… Initiate penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section 269 SS as discussed above." 12. The predecessor bench

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 756/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

which is based on notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) which does not unambiguously state whether the Appellant has concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) in the order has not considered the fact regarding satisfaction whether the Appellant has concealed its income ... also levied the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act vide order dated 23.03.2022 contending that the assessee has concealed the income as per provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and thereby hold the assessee liable

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 755/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

which is based on notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) which does not unambiguously state whether the Appellant has concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) in the order has not considered the fact regarding satisfaction whether the Appellant has concealed its income ... also levied the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act vide order dated 23.03.2022 contending that the assessee has concealed the income as per provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and thereby hold the assessee liable

Manphool Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 748/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Appeal Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Dev Arora (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 271B

assessee had furnished certain details regarding expenditure as well as income in return, which were not found inaccurate, nor could be viewed as concealment of income on part of assessee, merely because said claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to revenue, that by itself would not attract

ACIT, C-6, Ludhiana vs. M/S Aradhana Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1605/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

evidence. It was a case of a mere difference of opinion where no penalty could be levied. This is so since no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income stands established. That the matter involved two views also stands established from the fact that vide order dated

V City Builders and Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO 30(3)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 3289/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal & V City Builders & Ito-30(3)(5), Developers Llp, Kautilya Bhavan, बनाम/ 10 Jayambbe Co-Op Bkc, Bandra (E), Vs. Hsg Soc Ltd, Mumbai-400051. 3Rd Liberty Garden X Lane, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajfv3123C (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ujjwalkumar Chavhan Sr. DR
Section 148

facts in not clearly stating on which additions the penalty proceedings are initiated & by not clearly mentioning whether penalty proceedings are for concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income. c) The hon. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings

M/S. Ramesh Chandra Parekh., Kolkata vs. ITO, Delhi, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1259/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1259/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 M/S Ramesh Chandra Parekh…..…......................…...……………....Appellant City Centre, 19, Synagogue Street, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aadfr2844L] Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri J. M. Thard, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amuldeep Kaur, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 31, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.10.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271Da Of The Act On Account Of Violation Of Provisions Of Section 269St For Accepting Cash Payment More Than The Prescribed Limit Of Rs.2,00,000/- In An Aggregate From A Person In Respect Of A Single Transaction. 3. The Ld. Counsel, At The Outset, Has Submitted That The Aforesaid Violation Of Provisions Of Section 269St Was Not Intentional, Rather, The

Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

neither any intention or deliberate act to violate the provisions of section 269ST of the Act nor it was a case of any concealment of income or receipt and that even the PAN number of the customer was duly disclosed in the bill. The ld. counsel, therefore, has submitted that

DCIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. Icic Bank Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1762/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Shri. Gagan Goyal ()

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

made by the Assessee is bonafide and based on the legal position and facts of the case. Therefore, it cannot be held as concealment of income and question of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) does not arise in this case. The Assessee also claimed before the Assessing ... Petro products (P) Ltd (supra) has clearly held that mere making a claim which is not sustainable in law will not amounts to concealment of income and cannot attract penalty provisions. It is an admitted fact that in the instant case, the Assessee has made full disclosure of the exempt

Distt Cooperative Bank Ltd, Meerut vs. ACIT Circe, Bijnor

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2516/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2515 & 2516/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2011-12 & 2015-16 बनाम Distt. Cooperative Bank Ltd., Acit C/O Kashyap & Co., 114, Citi Centre, Vs. Circle, B.B. Road, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. Wahid Nagar, Station Road, Najibabad, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aabfd2205R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

limb under which 1 I.T.A.Nos.2515 & 2516/Del/2023 he intended to initiate the penalty proceedings, whether the penalty proceedings are initiated on account of concealment of income or on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to notice ... specify the limb for which the notice u/s I.T.A.Nos.2515 & 2516/Del/2023 271(1)(c) was issued i.e. either for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The notice was issued mechanically stating that the assessee had concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income

Distt Cooperative Bank Ltd, Meerut vs. ACIT Circle, Bijnor

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2515/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2515 & 2516/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2011-12 & 2015-16 बनाम Distt. Cooperative Bank Ltd., Acit C/O Kashyap & Co., 114, Citi Centre, Vs. Circle, B.B. Road, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. Wahid Nagar, Station Road, Najibabad, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aabfd2205R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

limb under which 1 I.T.A.Nos.2515 & 2516/Del/2023 he intended to initiate the penalty proceedings, whether the penalty proceedings are initiated on account of concealment of income or on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to notice ... specify the limb for which the notice u/s I.T.A.Nos.2515 & 2516/Del/2023 271(1)(c) was issued i.e. either for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The notice was issued mechanically stating that the assessee had concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income

Jayanta Kumar Sardar, Bardhaman vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Durgapur.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1251/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

above than the stated amount, the primary burden of proof is on the Revenue to show that there has been an understatement or concealment of income. It is only when such burden has been discharged, would it be permissible to rely upon the valuation given by the DVO. Further

Himanshu Chimanlal Engineer, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 19 (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3209/MUM/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3209/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3208/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Himanshu Chimanlal बिधम/ Assistant Commissioner Engineer Income Tax, 19 (2) Vs. 33 – Chamunda Niwas, B- Piramal Chambers, Wing, 3Rd Floor, Tagore Parel, Mumbai-400012. Road, Santa Cruz (West), Mumbai-400054. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaape0548H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anant N Pai Revenue By: Shri. P D Chougle (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi (Nfac) [Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 14.07.2023 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2007-08 & Ay 2009-10. 2. Both Sides Agree That These Appeals Are Penalty Appeals; & Facts As Well As The Penalty Levied Are Similar/Identical In Both Appeals. Therefore, Appeal For The Ay 2007-08 Is Taken As The Lead Case & The Result Of Which Will Be Followed Mutatis Mutandis For The Appeal For Ay 2009-10. A.Y. 2007-08, 2009-10 Himanshu Chimanlal Engineer, Mumbai 3. Coming To Appeal For Ay 2007-08, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Anant N Pai Pointed Out That The Ao Had Levied An Amount Of Rs.5,00,000/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) By Penalty Order Dated 31.03.2014 For Ay. 2007-08 (And Rs. 10,00,000/- For Ay 2009-10). Further According To Him, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Impugned Penalty Levied By The Ao. Before Us The Assessee Has Raised An Addition Ground Of Appeal Wherein Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Which Is Reproduced As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Anant N PaiFor Respondent: Shri. P D Chougle (Sr. AR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

when penalty proceedings were initiated by the Ld. Assessing Officer under a notice u/s 274 which did not specify clearly whether – the alleged concealment of income was on account of concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty proceedings are therefore without jurisdiction and deserve

Himanshu Chimanlal Engineer, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 19 (2) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3208/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3209/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3208/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Himanshu Chimanlal बिधम/ Assistant Commissioner Engineer Income Tax, 19 (2) Vs. 33 – Chamunda Niwas, B- Piramal Chambers, Wing, 3Rd Floor, Tagore Parel, Mumbai-400012. Road, Santa Cruz (West), Mumbai-400054. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaape0548H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anant N Pai Revenue By: Shri. P D Chougle (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi (Nfac) [Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 14.07.2023 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2007-08 & Ay 2009-10. 2. Both Sides Agree That These Appeals Are Penalty Appeals; & Facts As Well As The Penalty Levied Are Similar/Identical In Both Appeals. Therefore, Appeal For The Ay 2007-08 Is Taken As The Lead Case & The Result Of Which Will Be Followed Mutatis Mutandis For The Appeal For Ay 2009-10. A.Y. 2007-08, 2009-10 Himanshu Chimanlal Engineer, Mumbai 3. Coming To Appeal For Ay 2007-08, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Anant N Pai Pointed Out That The Ao Had Levied An Amount Of Rs.5,00,000/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) By Penalty Order Dated 31.03.2014 For Ay. 2007-08 (And Rs. 10,00,000/- For Ay 2009-10). Further According To Him, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Impugned Penalty Levied By The Ao. Before Us The Assessee Has Raised An Addition Ground Of Appeal Wherein Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Which Is Reproduced As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Anant N PaiFor Respondent: Shri. P D Chougle (Sr. AR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

when penalty proceedings were initiated by the Ld. Assessing Officer under a notice u/s 274 which did not specify clearly whether – the alleged concealment of income was on account of concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty proceedings are therefore without jurisdiction and deserve

Jeevaa Spa and Salon Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2849/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Shri. Amarjit Singh()

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

income. But 4 ITA 2849/Mum/2023 Jeeva Spa and Salon Pvt Ltd ultimately, the penalty to the tune of Rs.99,261/- was levied for concealment of income but not for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, which goes to show that the initiation of penalty was on different footing than the imposition ... Whether, omission if assessing officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the 5 ITA 2849/Mum/2023 Jeeva Spa and Salon

Mangal Keshav Securities Limited, Andheri (West) vs. The DCIT - 2(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2692/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jigar MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

treated as unexplained expenditure and added back to the total income. Penalty proceedings are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income.” 3 Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A) 5. against the order dated, 30/03/2016, passed under Section 147 read with Section