← All Phrases

“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

M/S.Redington Distributions Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intltaxation Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 893/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

view that, the MAP resolution did not reduce the adjustment to NIL which shows that, the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income in India. Relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Toyota Kirloskar Motor (P) Ltd vs. Union of India ... appellant and hence not disclosed to the AO. Thus the AO was right in initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars in the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no bar as per the DTAA or the ITA in imposing penalty even when the dispute

M/S. Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxation Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 892/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

view that, the MAP resolution did not reduce the adjustment to NIL which shows that, the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income in India. Relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Toyota Kirloskar Motor (P) Ltd vs. Union of India ... appellant and hence not disclosed to the AO. Thus the AO was right in initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars in the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no bar as per the DTAA or the ITA in imposing penalty even when the dispute

M/S. Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxation Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 891/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

view that, the MAP resolution did not reduce the adjustment to NIL which shows that, the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income in India. Relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Toyota Kirloskar Motor (P) Ltd vs. Union of India ... appellant and hence not disclosed to the AO. Thus the AO was right in initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars in the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no bar as per the DTAA or the ITA in imposing penalty even when the dispute

M/S.Redington Distributors Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxation Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 890/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

view that, the MAP resolution did not reduce the adjustment to NIL which shows that, the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income in India. Relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Toyota Kirloskar Motor (P) Ltd vs. Union of India ... appellant and hence not disclosed to the AO. Thus the AO was right in initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars in the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no bar as per the DTAA or the ITA in imposing penalty even when the dispute

M/S.Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxation Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 889/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

view that, the MAP resolution did not reduce the adjustment to NIL which shows that, the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income in India. Relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Toyota Kirloskar Motor (P) Ltd vs. Union of India ... appellant and hence not disclosed to the AO. Thus the AO was right in initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars in the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no bar as per the DTAA or the ITA in imposing penalty even when the dispute

Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board, Dehradun vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, all three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5130/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10(46)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) total amounting to Rs. 4,39,50,369/- on account of concealment of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is also on record that the impugned addition made by the AO on account of disallowance of exemption ... Commissioner, in the course of proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof, he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty a sum which shall income. Explanation 1 to section

Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board, Dehradun vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, all three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5129/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10(46)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) total amounting to Rs. 4,39,50,369/- on account of concealment of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is also on record that the impugned addition made by the AO on account of disallowance of exemption ... Commissioner, in the course of proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof, he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty a sum which shall income. Explanation 1 to section

Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board, Dehradun vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, all three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5128/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10(46)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) total amounting to Rs. 4,39,50,369/- on account of concealment of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is also on record that the impugned addition made by the AO on account of disallowance of exemption ... Commissioner, in the course of proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof, he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty a sum which shall income. Explanation 1 to section

Sylvan Greens Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 414/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Bhala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 801C

added to the total income of the assessee. Also penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT. Act is hereby initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.’’ 9 ITA NO.414.JPR/2025 SYLVAN GREEN PRIVATE LTD VS DCIT,CIRCLE-6 , JAIPUR 2.3 In first appeal, it is noticed that

Subhash Silk Mills Limited, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Cirle -11(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse bearing

ITA 3385/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeesubhash Silk Mills Limited Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax G-15, Prem Kutir, 177 Marine (Osd), Circle 11(2)(2), Mumbai Drive, Marine Lines, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan: Aaacs9966J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Govind PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – Sr AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

making addition amount to Rs.4,97,187/- on account of ‘Income from house property’. The Ld.AO has treated the alleged undisclosed income under “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” and by invoking provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty of Rs.1,61,315/- being

Fresenius Kabi Oncology Limited, West Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax/ National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Fresenius Kabi Oncology Vs. Dcit/ National Faceless Limited B-310 Somdatt Assessment Centre Chambers I R K Puram New Delhi (Main) South West Delhi 110006 Pan No. Aabcd7720L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Aditya Vohra, Advocate Ms. Aakriti Bansal, Ca Respondent By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 Order Per Sudhir Kumar: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26 New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 12.11.2024 Pertaining To A.Y. 2012-13 Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (In Short ‘The Act’).

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

first notice dated 29-04-2016 would show that the penalty proceedings were initiated for filing of concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income but in the notice dated 06-03-2020 mentioned that assessee have concealed the particulars of income. He further submitted that ... notice dated 08-03-2022 and 09-03-2022 the reasons were mentioned for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. He also submitted that the AO did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated. Reliance has placed on the following

C.R. Textile Mills, Salem vs. ITO, Circle-1, Salem

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

ITA 1361/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1361/Chny/2025 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

sundry creditors not confirmed. Based on the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the A.O levied a penalty of Rs. 94,977/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in respect of the unconfirmed sundry creditors of Rs. 3,04,414/-. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) did not accept ... that the A.O had issued notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income however, the penalty was levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, it was argued that the C.R. Textile Mills :- 3 -: penalty is not sustainable and should be cancelled. On merits

Rakesh Kumar Jain, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 212/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CA and Shri Vikas Yadav AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

r.w.s. 271(c) was issued for concealing the particulars of income or furnishing particulars of income whereas the penalty was levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.’’ Further, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed following detailed written submission as to the levy of penalty amounting to Rs.26.00 lacs ... notwithstanding the fact that the SCN u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was issued for concealing the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, where as penalty was levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The issue is purely legal and goes to the root of the matter

Nareshbhai Arjanbhai Lathiya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(3)(3), Surat

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

ITA 1342/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1342/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Nareshbhai Arjanbhai Lathiya, Vs. Ito, Plot No.97, Laxmi Society, Gajera Circle – 3(3)(3), School Road,Behind Gajera School, Surat Katargam, Surat - 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adlpp8388A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Ms Jayashree Thakur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2025

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

determined at Rs.21,98,770/- against the returned income of Rs.10,97,658/-. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was also separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed this appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued three notices

Xcelris Labs Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 32/AHD/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jul 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)Section 43(1)

assessment order of a claim made by an assessee in the Income Tax return does not constitute the default of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income so as to attract penalty u/s_271(1)(c). It is therefore prayed that impugned penalty order may please be cancelled. 9. Your appellant prays

DCIT, Circle-1, Durgapur vs. Debeanjana Hard Coke Private Limited, Hetedoba

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 564/KOL/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jul 2025

Bench: the appellate proceedings or in the course of appellate proceedings.”

Section 10Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

without identification of the default for which penalty proceedings were initiated and the AO erred in imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income without identifying the particulars of income which were furnished by the assessee and found inaccurate by the AO. To support its contention ... penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. For this proposition, I rely on the case of CIT vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxmann.com 241 dated 23-11-2015 wherein the following questions were raised before

M/S. Ceva Freight Llc, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1264/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234B

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, rescind from or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time

Dharmesh Damjibhai Patoliya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward2(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 487/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.487/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Dharmesh Damjibhai Patoliya Vs. Ito, 101 Gandamaya Apartment Ward – 2(2)(1), Matrukrupa Society, Kamrej Surat Charrasta Opp. Azim Hospital, Tal: Kamrej, Surat-395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahzpp1276F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/07/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 250Section 253(3)Section 40

against the returned income of Rs.8,93,970/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 7. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has condoned the delay in filing

Seema Jain, Indore vs. ITO 1(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 591/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2013-14 Seema Jain, Ito 1(1) 73-Ba, Scheme No.94, Indore Regency Adrise, Near बनाम/ Bombay Hospital, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Adtpj4652K Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50Section 50C

more than the sale consideration admitted and mentioned in the sale agreement. Thus it does not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is also not the case of the revenue that the assessee has failed to furnish the relevant record as called ... terms of deeming provisions of section 50C, higher sales consideration of property determined by the DVO did not by itself amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income so as to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the act The revenue has also not shown

Santosh Kanwar, Jaipur vs. ITO 6(4 ) Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 937/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 274Section 288Section 68Section 69C

forming part of this order. Issue demand notice & challan accordingly. Penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is issued separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars.” 4 Santosh Kanwar, Jaipur. 4. Assessee-appellant, an individual, used to draw salary as director of Singla Buildcom Pvt. Ltd. She also used to derive