“furnishing inaccurate particulars”

PenaltySection 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)2,073 judgments

The decision most relied on for furnishing inaccurate particulars is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on furnishing inaccurate particulars

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 furnishing inaccurate particulars

The Bank Employees Co Operative Bank Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-36, Kolkata

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

ITA 362/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 362/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Bank Employees Cooperative Bank Limited,………………………………………………….Appellant 23A, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aabat5298D] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…….Respondent Circle-36, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri Sanbarta Koley, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Ms. Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(9)Section 83

Rs.25,20,700/- to the total income along with initiation of penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as the amount of interest earned on Members Welfare Fund was shown as income and as a matching concept of Generally Accepted Accounting

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

ITA 3084/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 1Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

closing stock’. (relevant paras are 37 and 38 of the assessment order). On account of these disallowances, the A.O. initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and noted in para no. 36, 38 and 39 of his order as under ... assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income to the extent of Rs. 55,07,79,154/-, I am satisfied that it attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are initiated in this regard

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

ITA 3083/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 1Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Sh.Mohit Batola, Dehradun vs. ACIT, CC, Ddn, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 101/DDN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun30 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Mohit Batola Vs Acit 155, Village Miyanwala Central Circle P.O.-Harrawala, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-248001 Pan-Aftpb3533M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Verendra Kalra, Ca Revenue By Shri S.K.Chaterjee, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2025 Order

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274(1)

passed wherein penalty of Rs.8,46,856/- was levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Before us, the Ld. AR of the assessee submits that at the time of initiation of the proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, notice ... seen that in both notices, it was not specified whether the penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. He thus, by following the order of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

Ankit Jain, Tonk vs. Income Tax Officer, Tonk

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1303/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Jaideep Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (through V.C.)

Section 115BSection 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69C

finally completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153C assessing the income at Rs.8,63,500/- Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) Jaipur-4, who dismissed

Ankit Jain, Tonk vs. Income Tax Officer, Tonk

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1302/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Jaideep Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (through V.C.)

Section 115BSection 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69C

Anshul Jain, Tonk vs. Income Tax Officer, Tonk

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1301/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Jaideep Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (through V.C.)

Section 115BSection 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69C

Tejas Shivaji Adsul, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri A.R. Naik (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva

Section 115JSection 143Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(6)

assessee submits that in the reassessment order, the A.O has initiated penalty u/s 270A on a vague charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income' also in the notice u/s 274 r.w.s 270A, the exact limb of section 270A(9) which has been allegedly violated by the assessee has not been ... higher judicial forums had settled the law that the Assessing Officer ought to specify as to whether the concerned taxpayer had concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of his taxable income during the course of assessment. I am of the view that the very line of judicial precedents would squarely apply

Rnt Associates Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5221/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Vishal ShahFor Respondent: 29/10/2025

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

specify the precise charge—viz. viz. whether the penalty was initiated for whether the penalty was initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars concealment of income furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof. It is urged that this fundamental defect, having been raised . It is urged that this fundamental defect ... inaccurate (1) (c) of the IT Act is also initiated for furnishing inaccurate (1) (c) of the IT Act is also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income(concealment of income.” particulars of income(concealment of income.” 5.4 The same ambiguity pervades the notice under Section 274, a The same

DCIT 42 1 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Devleela Developers, Mumbai

In the result present appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2097/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawaldcit – 42(1)(1) Vs. Devleela Developers Room No. 732, Kautilya 604-605, Aravalli Bhavan Bkc (E), Mumbai – Business Centre, 400051. Ramdas Sutrale Marg, Borivali (W) Pan/Gir No. Aacfd5181B (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 250

added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." 5 Devleela Developers, Mumbai. And further submitted that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the facts placed on record therefore Requested

Shri Antriksh Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-35(4), Delhi

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

ITA 2421/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 271ASection 271B

Section 15A(1) is attracted as soon as it is shown that the assessee has concealed the particulars of its turnover or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such turnover in the return filed under Section 7 of the Act. It is manifest that from the Sh. Antriksh Gupta grammatical point ... turnover in a proceeding under Section 21, the assessee cannot be guilty of concealing particulars of its turnover from, or of furnishing inaccurate particulars in a proceeding under Section 21. The concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars must be in the return furnished under Section 7. Clause (a) of Section

Shri Antriksh Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-35(4), Delhi

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

ITA 2420/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 271ASection 271B

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Rajakumari Shopping Amall LLP, Attingal

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 597/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle .......... Appellant Aayakar Bhavan, Kawdiar, Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Rajkumari Shopping Mall Llp ......... Respondent Amc 11/556, City Plaza, Nh Road Attingal 695101 [Pan: Aaqfr1222B] Assessee By: Shri V.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri V.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

specifically mentioned whether the penalty is proposed in respect of concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The appellant contended that in the absence of specific and particular mentioning of the reason for the penalty, the penalty notice itself is invalid and as a result the imposition ... inasmuch as the Assessing Officer failed to specify the particular limb—whether the penalty proceedings were initiated for “concealment of income” or for “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” It is well-settled by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala inPCIT vs. Ambadi Krishna Menon (163 taxmann.com

Rupesh Tambi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 1470/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 1Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 271Section 271A

liability would arise. In Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint 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 rea was necessary ... therefore, it was held that fumishing of an assessment of the value of the property may not by itself be furnishing inaccurate particulars. It was further held that the Assessing Officer must be found to have failed to prove that his explanation is not only not bona fide

Saradambika Power Plant (P) Ltd, Srikakulam vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 281/VIZ/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Balakrishnan Sshri Sandeep Singh Karhailsaradambika Power Plant (P) Ltd., Plot No.15, Konna Street, Radha Krishna Nagar Colony, Srikakulam. Andhra Pradesh - 532001 ............... Appellant Pan: Aajcs5970R V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 3(1), ……………… Respondent Visakhapatnam

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3Section 40A(3)Section 43B

submitted that the AO has not specified whether the penalty has been levied for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently relied upon the order passed by the lower authorities. 7. We have considered the submissions of both

Hubli Saraku Saganikedarara Sahakari Pattina Sangha Niymita, Hubli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(1), Hubli

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

ITA 1043/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Respondent: Ms. Keerthana M S &

Section 271(1)(c)Section 80P(2)(a)

banks. Thereafter the assessing officer proposed to impose penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars. The assessee objected the same but the AO had confirmed the penalty and as against the said penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal ... operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT reported in 431 ITR 1 and therefore the claim made by the assessee could not be treated as furnishing inaccurate particulars and therefore the penalty could not be levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. The Ld.DR relied on the orders

Nmc Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) CC2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5215/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

penalty under section 271(1)(c). 6. The Assessing Officer thereafter levied penalty of ₹42,67,797 alleging that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The learned CIT(A) concurred with this view and confirmed the penalty on the reasoning that the assessee had failed to substantiate ... disturbed nor doubted. Once the trading results are accepted in totality, it cannot be said that the assessee has concealed any income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. The disallowance was only a matter of estimation of profit on a segment of purchases considered unverifiable. Such estimation by applying a gross

Nidhiben Mrugeshkumar Shah, Anand vs. The ACIT, (OSD), Ward-5, Anand

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

ITA 1627/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1627/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बनाम/ Nidhiben Mrugeshkumar Assistant Commissioner Shah Of Income Tax (Osd) Vs. 3, Laksh Gold Bunglows, Ward-5, Anand B/H. Dz Patel High School, 80 Feet Road, Vidyanagar Road, Anand – 388001, Gujarat "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aprpj4087Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Viranch Modi, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Kakoli Uttam Ghosh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/10/2025 17/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Viranch Modi, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kakoli Uttam Ghosh, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi dated 18.06.2025 confirming the levy of penalty for concealing particulars of income / furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year

Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2)(3) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Nitinbhai Kanubhai Patel, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 183/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-2017 Ito, Ward-4(2)(3) Shri Nitinbhai Kanubhai Patel Ahmedabad. Vs. Room No.303, 3Rd Floor Aaykar Bhavan Vejalpur, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaspp 5802 F (Applicant) (Responent) : None Assessee By : Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.Dr. Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54BSection 54B(1)(i)

assessed total income at Rs.3,09,00,950/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2.8 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed statement of facts challenging the findings

Kavita Balraj Lanjile, Pashan vs. ITO, Pune

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

ITA 1758/PUN/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1758/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Kavita Balraj Lanjile, Vs. Ito, Ward-11(2), Pune. Flat No.401, Bldg. No.A-2, Shivranjan Tower, Someshwarwadi, Pune- 411008. Pan : Aaqpl5138C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bharat Shah Revenue By : Shri Harshit Bari Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.01.2024 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Having Income From Profession & Business Income In The Shape Of Interest On Capital & Remuneration From Partnership Firm & Also Agricultural Income. The Assessee Furnished Her Return Of Income On 17.07.2014 Disclosing Professional Income, Income From Other

For Appellant: Shri Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari

Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

notice issued to the Assessee did not clarify whether the penalty was proposed to be imposed on the grounds of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The necessary box containing the two options was not ticked. Thus, the Assessee had no clear notice about the case it was required to meet