“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

Gujarat State Electricity Corpn. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1598/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah & Shri RushinFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT. DR

Section 250Section 50(2)

assessee is aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the assessee’s appeal against penalty levied by the AO for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income / concealing particulars of income in terms of the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have gone through

Gujarat State Electricity Corpn. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1597/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah & Shri RushinFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT. DR

Section 250Section 50(2)

Shree Sharanavasaceshwar Credit Souhard Sahakari Ni Halingali, Halingali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bagalkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17 Shree Sharanabasaveshwar Credit Souhard Sahakari Ni Halingali Ito Tq Jamkhandi, Dt Bagalkot Vs. Ward-1 Halingali, Karnataka 587315 Bagalkot Pan No :Aaeas6699C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Subramanian S., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 07.11.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1070176573(1) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: -

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act amounting to Rs. 20,18,882/-. The AO thereafter initiated the penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income vide notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 06/12/2018. During the course of penalty proceedings, it was submitted ... inaccurate particulars of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 and accordingly, prayed that as there was no malafide intention to conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars, the proposed penalty proceedings may be dropped. The AO after considering the reply did not accept the contention mainly on the ground that

Anish Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 61(1), Delhi

ITA 569/DEL/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 271(1)(c)

r.w.s. 274 of the Act not specifying any specific limb as to whether they had concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of taxable income; as the case may be, his failure to this effect vitiates the entire proceedings therefore. Relevant notices dated 30.03.2015 and 30.12.2017 form part of the records before

Anish Kumar Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 61(1), Delhi

ITA 568/DEL/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 271(1)(c)

Vijay Kumar Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-61(1), Delhi

ITA 566/DEL/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 271(1)(c)

Jar Metal Industries(P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward-13(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 9695/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

assessee is not acceptable. I, am, therefore, satisfied that this act of assessee was a deliberate act to conceal the facts and furnish inaccurate particulars of its income which lead to evasion of income of Rs.3,67,43,966/-. Therefore, I find the case fit for imposing penalty ... Income Tax Act, 1961 being 100% and minimum of the tax sought to be evaded by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee is directed to pay this amount as per notice of demand enclosed herewith.” 4.6. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Jar Metal Industries(P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward-13(2), New Delhi

ITA 9694/DEL/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH

M/S Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 310/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

order has recorded that RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealed its taxable income with respect to the above additions made to the total income of the assessee from para ... course of proceedings before me for the assessment year 2013- 14 it appears that you have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. You are hereby requested to appear before me on 15-01-2016 at 11AM and show cause why an order imposing

M/S Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

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

ITA 309/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

order has recorded that 3 ITA NO.309 & 310/JPR/2025 RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealed its taxable income with respect to the above additions made to the total income of the assessee from para ... course of proceedings before me for the assessment year 2013- 14 it appears that you have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. You are hereby requested to appear before me on 15-01-2016 at 11AM and show cause why an order imposing

Mahesh Kumar, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-68(6), Delhi

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

ITA 2650/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

income of the assessee u/s 68 of the IT Act 1901. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(e) are being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars and thereby concealment of income. 12. Further detailed analysis of evidences available on record i.e. bank statements and statement of affair filed it reveals that ... assessee as unexplained expenditure u/s 69 of the IT Act 1961. Penalty proceedings us 271(1(c) are being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars and thereby concealment of income.” 3.2. Against the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) unit

Mohd. Umar, Nuh, Mewat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Faridabad

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3078/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.3078/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2011-12) Mohd. Umar, Village Siroli, Tehsil Punhana, Mewat, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Nuh, Palwal, Haryana 121103 Pan: Aabpu-9980-G बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5) ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Cgo Complex, Faridabad, Haryana 121001 अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 31/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 03.02.2025, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 8 Days. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Supported By An Affidavit & Medical Records. After Perusal Of Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, But Is For The Reasons Stated In The Condonation Petition Which Appears To Be Bonafide. Hence, Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing On Merits.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.DR

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

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by observing as under:- “I am satisfied that the assessee has concealed his income by furnished inaccurate particulars of his income on this account and, therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are hereby initiated separately ... Supreme Court of India in the case of T. Ashok Pai vs CIT, 161 Taxman 340 has held that ‘concealment of income’ and ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars’ carry different connotations. 5. Thereafter, the AO vide order dated 26.06.2018 levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of particulars

Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ludhiana

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 338/CHANDI/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person (a) and (b)**** **** (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. He may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty. (i) and (Income-tax Officer,)**** **** ITA 376/CHD/2014 & ITA 338/CHD/2017 ... Learned CIT(Appeals) during the course of any proceedings before them should be satisfied, that the assessee has; (i) concealed his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. As far as the quantification of the penalty is concerned, the penalty imposed under this section can range in between

Sh. Dinesh Sethi, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ludhiana

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 376/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

DCIT Central Circle 7 (1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Panther Investrade Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the Cross appeals no

ITA 416/MUM/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Akash Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan (Sr. DR)

Section 271(1)(c)

original proceedings inasmuch as he issued the notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271 specifying the charge for both the limbs that is, for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment thereof, and as such, the notice suffers P a g e | 6 ITA No. 415, 416/Mum/2025 CO No. 50, 51/Mum/2025 ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer has levied penalty by order dated 25.03.2009 for both limbs namely, "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income" and "concealment of income": thus, thereby, the impugned order, being continuation of proceedings initiated during the course of assessment and culminated into the order

DCIT(Central Circle)-7(1), Mumbai vs. Panther Investrade Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the Cross appeals no

ITA 415/MUM/2025[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Akash Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan (Sr. DR)

Section 271(1)(c)

Ogd Services Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1407/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan,(Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43BSection 44A

argument to establish that there existed any reasonable cause for non-levy of penalty. Accordingly, it was held by him the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of the said income, within the meaning of clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 271 of the Act. 4. In the subsequent appeal ... that mere addition/ disallowance warrant the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee cannot be said to have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income or concealed any income, as all the facts were disclosed truly and fully. In this regard, ld. AR relied

Sukhabhai Dayalbhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(6), Surat

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

ITA 1120/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri P M Jagasheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54B

claim and proceeded with the assessment based on the stamp duty valuation. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. In appeal, CIT(A) gave part relief to the assessee. CIT(Appeals) reviewed the grounds of appeal, assessment order

Urmila Rajendra Mundra, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Ajmer

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 577/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(1)

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. 10. It was tried to be suggested that section

Dy.CIT, Circle 1(1) & Tps, Thrissur vs. Arun Majeed, Thrissur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

ITA 388/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit, Circle 1(1) & Tps, Thrissur .......... Appellant [Pan: Adopa9351R] Vs. Arun Majeed .......... Respondent Palak Velyannur Temple Road Veliyannur, Thrissur 680021 Appellant By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Respondent By: ------- None ------- Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: ------- None -------

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(i)Section 274

penalty by holding that the AO had not specifically mentioned whether the penalty is proposed in respect of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of PCIT v. Ambadi Krishna Menon ... notice issued by the AO is defective, as the AO 5 Arun Majeed failed to specify whether the assessee had conceal income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In our opinion provisions of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) were squarely applicable to the facts of the present case