furnishing inaccurate particulars — 2,073 case laws

DCIT, Chennai vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, Chennai

ITA 1264/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1253, 1264 & 1271/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle -2(3), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, 1St Main Road, Adyar, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 020. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Abfps-1422-E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri. Shrenik Chordia, Ca. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am: The Present Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.02.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld.Cit(A), Chennai, In Respect Of The Assessment Order Dated 01.03.2019 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(3) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) For The Assessment Year 2017-18 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Assessment Year) U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act). :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी वर्की, न्यायिक

DCIT, Chennai vs. Jagathrakskan Srinisha, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 1253/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1253, 1264 & 1271/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle -2(3), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, 1St Main Road, Adyar, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 020. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Abfps-1422-E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri. Shrenik Chordia, Ca. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am: The Present Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.02.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld.Cit(A), Chennai, In Respect Of The Assessment Order Dated 01.03.2019 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(3) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) For The Assessment Year 2017-18 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Assessment Year) U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act). :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

stated that she had initiated penalty proceedings 'u/s. 271(1)(c), 270A & 271AAC of I.T.Act 1961 for concealment of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, penalty for under reporting and misreporting of income & penalty in respect of certain income' (emphasis supplied). Further, show-cause notices dated ... imposition of penalty u/s 270A, 271AAC and 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income were issued to the Respondent for the subject AY 2017-18. 5. In this regard, it is submitted that the Learned Assessing Officer had failed

Laxmiben Narayan Chaute, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 357/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.357/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 (Hybrid Hearing) Laxmiben Narayan Chaute Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(2)(3), बनाम/ Plot No.2, Ambica Society 2, Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Vs. Udhna Magdalla Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abfpc 0082 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Manish J Shah, Ar राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 27/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

sale deed, vide order u/s 143(3) dated 30.01.2016. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Subsequently, the AO issued show cause notice and after hearing the assessee, levied minimum penalty of Rs.4,60,3143/-, being 100% of the tax sought

Abdul Jabbar Jaheer Husain, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-8(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2245/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2245/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Abdul Jabbar Jaheer The Income Tax Officer, Husain, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 8(2), No.17/73, Pillayar Koil Street, Chennai. Ayapakkam, Chennai – 600 077. Pan: Adopj 8688E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri V. Padmanaban, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanaban, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54BSection 54F

income and the penalty notice may be dropped. The AO, however rejected the :- 4 -: contentions of the assessee and held that assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of his income by overstating the exemption claimed u/s.54F of the Act. The AO accordingly levied penalty of Rs.4,62,819/- being ... held that in the instant case, the assessee’s explanation is not bonafide. It was concluded by the FAA that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by overstating the deduction claimed u/s.54F of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, assessee has filed the present appeal

Ujjal Sinha, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1933/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 Ujjal Sinha……..…………………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 57/3, Ballygunge Circular Road, Ballygunge S.O, Kolkata 19. [Pan: Aeips4499F] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata……………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 13, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.08.2025 Of The Cit (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011–12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income U/S.139(1) Of The Act For The A.Y. 2011-12 On 11/02/2012 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.19,12,432/-. In The Instant Case, A Search & Seizure Operation Was Conducted On 24.01.2012 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee Wherein No Incriminating Material Was Found. Thereafter. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 153A/143(3) Of The Act On 31/03/2014 Assessing The Total Income At Rs.92,12,430/- Wherein The Following Two Additions To The Total Income Were Made:

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the Return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars. 19. It was tried to be suggested that Section ... also the authorities below have not brought any material to show that the assessee has concealed any particulars of its income or furnished inaccurate particulars. We, therefore, reverse the orders of authorities below and delete the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. In the result

M/S Nandlal Keshardeo, Ranchi vs. ACIT, Central Circle (1), Ranchi

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

ITA 15/RAN/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

under section 142(1)/143/2) of the Income Tax Act 1961. No dated have concealed the particulars of your Income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such Income. You are hereby requested to appear before me on 21.04.2016 at 3.30 PM and show cause why an order imposing a penalty ... farce. Notice issued to the assessee reproduced (supra), does not show whether penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for having undisclosed income within the meaning of Section 271AAB of the Act. Notice in our opinion war vague. Hon'ble Karnataka

DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue for AY 2011-12 to 2013-14 are dismissed

ITA 5413/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Swapnil Choudhary Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 35DSection 40

initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) with respect to the claim of expense u/s. 35D on the ground that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Against the penalty order the assessee preferred further appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty ... entitled to deduction u/s 35D of the I. T. Act 1961. Consequently, the A.O. held that the impugned claim amounted to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, the A.O. levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act 1961. The present appeal is against this penalty

DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue for AY 2011-12 to 2013-14 are dismissed

ITA 5412/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Swapnil Choudhary Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 35DSection 40

initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) with respect to the claim of expense u/s. 35D on the ground that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Against the penalty order the assessee preferred further appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty ... entitled to deduction u/s 35D of the I. T. Act 1961. Consequently, the A.O. held that the impugned claim amounted to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, the A.O. levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act 1961. The present appeal is against this penalty

DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue for AY 2011-12 to 2013-14 are dismissed

ITA 5411/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Swapnil Choudhary Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 35DSection 40

initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) with respect to the claim of expense u/s. 35D on the ground that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Against the penalty order the assessee preferred further appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty ... entitled to deduction u/s 35D of the I. T. Act 1961. Consequently, the A.O. held that the impugned claim amounted to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, the A.O. levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act 1961. The present appeal is against this penalty

ACIT-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Torane Ispat Udyog Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.1 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 4123/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt.Renu Jauhriacit-15(3)(1) Vs. M/S. Torane Ispat Udyog Room No. 480, Forth Floor, Private Limited Aayakar Bhawan, 49, Ground Floor, Cinewonder Mumbai-400020. Mall, Ghodbunder Road, Thane West, Mumbai-400607. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aacct9196K Appellant .. Respondent

Section 1Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

ignoring the fact that the penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer after recording his satisfaction and concluding that assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 3 "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in holding that ... bogus purchases shown by the assessee from M/s. Mumbai Trading Company and penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) were also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Subsequently, vide order dated 30.08.2016, penalty of Rs. 4,01,723/- computed P a g e | 4 ITA NO. 4123/mum/2025

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Suresh Maneklal Sheth, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4560/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Swapnil Choudhary Sr. ARFor Respondent: 30.10.2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

only. 6.4 It is settled position that when the additions made in the assessment order, on the basis of which penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars is levied, are deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty. Accordingly, no penalty can survive and the same is liable ... provisions o f section 271(1)(c) there has to be concealment o f particulars of income , secondly the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of income . 9. In the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT V/s Reliance Petroproducts

Stepathlon Lifestyle Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -13(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5060/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Choksy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

notice was issued without mentioning specifically as to whether penalty is sought to be levied for “concealing the particulars of income” or “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” thereby passing the Penalty Order u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s 274 of the Act which is invalid and illegal ... quantum proceedings before any appellate authorities. However, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Before him, it requested for not levying the penalty by stating that the error committed was inadvertent and there was no malafide intention

DCIT, Delhi vs. Ajayvision Education Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 4175/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Assessing Officer after "disallowing" the amount, initiated proceedings for concealment. If at all, any amount disallowed, at the most invite penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. To that extent, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer suffers from insufficiency of charge proposed and leviable. The difference between 'concealment ... High Court of Orissa, ITA no. 211/Orissa/1995. It was held that the expression "concealed the particulars of income" and 'has furnished inaccurate particulars of income have not been defined either in Section 271(1)(c) or elsewhere in the Act. One thing is certain that these two circumstances

DCIT, Delhi vs. Ajayvision Education Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 4174/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Assessing Officer after "disallowing" the amount, initiated proceedings for concealment. If at all, any amount disallowed, at the most invite penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. To that extent, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer suffers from insufficiency of charge proposed and leviable. The difference between 'concealment ... High Court of Orissa, ITA no. 211/Orissa/1995. It was held that the expression "concealed the particulars of income" and 'has furnished inaccurate particulars of income have not been defined either in Section 271(1)(c) or elsewhere in the Act. One thing is certain that these two circumstances

DCIT, Delhi vs. Ajayvision Education Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 4173/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Assessing Officer after "disallowing" the amount, initiated proceedings for concealment. If at all, any amount disallowed, at the most invite penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. To that extent, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer suffers from insufficiency of charge proposed and leviable. The difference between 'concealment ... High Court of Orissa, ITA no. 211/Orissa/1995. It was held that the expression "concealed the particulars of income" and 'has furnished inaccurate particulars of income have not been defined either in Section 271(1)(c) or elsewhere in the Act. One thing is certain that these two circumstances

DCIT, Delhi vs. Ajayvision Education Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 4172/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Assessing Officer after "disallowing" the amount, initiated proceedings for concealment. If at all, any amount disallowed, at the most invite penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. To that extent, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer suffers from insufficiency of charge proposed and leviable. The difference between 'concealment ... High Court of Orissa, ITA no. 211/Orissa/1995. It was held that the expression "concealed the particulars of income" and 'has furnished inaccurate particulars of income have not been defined either in Section 271(1)(c) or elsewhere in the Act. One thing is certain that these two circumstances

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam vs. Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarthy, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 352/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.352/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarty International Taxation, Circle H.No. 26-22-16 Ground Floor, Infinity Tower Near Chinna Anjaneya Swamy Temple Sankarmattam Road Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry Visakhapatnam – 530016 East Godavari District – 533103 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Edzpk3519Q]

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 292B

provision the penalty is proposed to be levied. Section271(1)(c) of the Act imposes penalty on two limbs firstly for “furnishing inaccurate particulars” and secondly for “concealment of income”. However, the notices issued to the assessee do not specify the limb under which the penalty was proposed ... levied. Ordinarily, the two phrases i.e., “furnishing inaccurate particulars” and “concealment of income” are separate and distinct and carry different meaning and connotation. The penalty proceedings initiated by the revenue under section 271(1)(c) of the Act should be specific on the ground which foundation thereof, otherwise assessee would

Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4) Now Ward- 1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 159/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act as the penalty would be leviable if the assessee conceals particulars of his income or furnishes inaccurate particulars thereof. Moreover, the valuation by approved valuer or otherwise is a matter of estimate. In view of the above facts and circumstances ... LTCG. The AO assessed the income at Rs. 6,19,780/-. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4) Now Ward- 1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 158/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act as the penalty would be leviable if the assessee conceals particulars of his income or furnishes inaccurate particulars thereof. Moreover, the valuation by approved valuer or otherwise is a matter of estimate. In view of the above facts and circumstances ... LTCG. The AO assessed the income at Rs. 6,19,780/-. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

Shri Rajkot District Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Rajkot vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Rajkot

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 196/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) Shri Rajkot District Co-Operative Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Jilla Bank Bhavan, Kasturba Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Opp. Chaudhary High School, Road, Rajkot-360001 Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afups2094H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Smt. Pallavi, Ld. Cit(Dr) : 06/08/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 04/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay)-2018-19, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Office [(In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 29.12.2023, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 30.03.2023 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Pallavi, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

light of this facts, there was no case for the AO to allege or to hold the entries under dispute as "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income" so as to invoke provision of Section 271(1)(c). 6. Subsequently, in pursuance of the order u/s 263 dated 21.03.2016 passed

“furnishing inaccurate particulars”

Leading authorities on furnishing inaccurate particulars

Judgments citing furnishing inaccurate particulars

DCIT, Chennai vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, Chennai

DCIT, Chennai vs. Jagathrakskan Srinisha, Chennai

Laxmiben Narayan Chaute, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(3), Surat

Abdul Jabbar Jaheer Husain, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-8(2), Chennai

Ujjal Sinha, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Kolkata

M/S Nandlal Keshardeo, Ranchi vs. ACIT, Central Circle (1), Ranchi

DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai

DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai

DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai

ACIT-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Torane Ispat Udyog Private Limited, Mumbai

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Suresh Maneklal Sheth, Mumbai

Stepathlon Lifestyle Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -13(2)(2), Mumbai

DCIT, Delhi vs. Ajayvision Education Private Limited, Delhi

DCIT, Delhi vs. Ajayvision Education Private Limited, Delhi

DCIT, Delhi vs. Ajayvision Education Private Limited, Delhi

DCIT, Delhi vs. Ajayvision Education Private Limited, Delhi

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam vs. Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarthy, Rajahmundry

Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4) Now Ward- 1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4) Now Ward- 1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

Shri Rajkot District Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Rajkot vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Rajkot