“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

Rawat Prabhu Prakash Singh Chundawat HUF, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Centeral Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 688/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)

Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

without significant variation, the AO proceeded to initiate and levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the penalty so levied is unjustified both in law and on facts ... further contended that the penalty order fails to specify whether the penalty is being levied for "concealment of income" or "furnishing inaccurate particulars." The twin conditions prescribed under section 271(1)(c) are not satisfied in the present case. In support of the above contentions, the Ld. AR relied

Rawat Prabhu Prakash Singh Chundawat HUF, Udaipur vs. Dcitl Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 687/JODH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)

Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

Ila Jitendra Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5219/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Ganatra, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 133Section 139(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person- (a). .. .. .... ... . . (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. 11. From the above, it may be observed that ... Further, mere making of the claim in the Return of Income which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the Assessee. 13. Further, a guilty mind is necessary for the purpose of levy of penalty. In the instant case

V. M. Maniyar Exports, Surat vs. DCIT, Circle 2(2), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1368/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1368/Srt/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) V.M.Maniyar Exports Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Plot No.103-104, Surat Income-Tax, Circle-2(2), Surat Vs. Special Economic Zone, Gidc, Sachin,Surat-394230 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaifv 6884 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 10ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)

deduction was restricted to Rs.21,43,313/- instead of Rs.29,58,065/-. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. During the penalty proceedings, the AO observed that by not claiming depreciation deliberately, the assessee has benefited not only from taxation in subsequent ... assessee did not file any reply. Hence, the AO observed that assessee failed to give any justification or acceptable explanation for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the case falls within the mischief of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO levied minimum penalty of Rs.2

Popular Mega Motors (India) Private Limited, Kochi vs. DCIT, Corporate Cir 2(1), Kochi

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

ITA 273/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.P.M.Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

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

particular ground on which the AO has proceeded against the assessee for imposing of penalty, viz., whether it is for “concealment of income”, “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” or for both. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT v. Shri Ambady Krishna Menon (supra) had held

Mr Vikas Jayram Bhukan, Pune vs. ITO Ward 12(3), Pune

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

ITA 2483/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2483/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mr. Vikas Jayram Bhukan, Vs. Ito, Ward-12(3), Pune. Survey No.34, House No.80, Azad Chowk, Opposite Ramma, Lohegaon, Near Gram Panchayat, Pune- 411047. Pan : Alqpb0811K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue By : Shri Kumar Manish Singha Date Of Hearing : 08.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstance Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Act It Be Held That The Notice For Levy Of Penalty Was Defective Since No Specific Charge Of Violation, Was Made Out In The Notice & Thus The Consequent Penalty So Levied Be Kindly Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Manish Singha

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

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

M/S Vodafone Global Services P Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 660/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.660/Pun/2022 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 156Section 270Section 92C(2)Section 92D

penalty proceedings under section 270(A) of the Act. 11. Initiating the penalty proceedings under section 270(A) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 2.1 Assessee has raised following additional ground : “Ground No.: Final Assessment Order passed without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed

Kalpana Dilip Mehta As Legal Heir of Dilip D Mehta, Mumbai vs. JCIT 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1387/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. C.A. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. [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), men- rea was necessary, as according ... therefore, it was held that furnishing of an assessment of the value of the property may not by itself be furnishing inaccurate particulars. It was further held that the assessee must be found to have failed to prove that his explanation is not only not bona fide

Ascot Realty Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1-, Thane

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

ITA 4644/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh MarwahaFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (SR. DR.)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

limb of the section 271(1)(c) alleging 'Concealment of Income, HOWEVER, the penalty was levied on two other limbs l.e. for Furnishing Inaccurate particulars of Income'and for 'Deemed concealment of income', where all three connotations have different meanings in law, showing improper opportunity of being heard ... penalty proceeding on the ground that the ld. AO initiated penalty proceeding for concealment of particulars of income, whereas penalty was levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which are two different limbs as per Section 27(1)(c) of the Act. Further, the ld. AR contended that the show

Ascot Realty Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Thane

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

ITA 4643/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh MarwahaFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (SR. DR.)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

DCIT-CC-4(3), Mumbai vs. Era Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the ground No

ITA 3096/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Bleshri Girish Agrawal, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 92C

Rs.116,92,92,850 + Rs.32,63,37,484) for the year consideration. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income. Addition: Rs.149,56,30,334/- 3. The assessing officer further noted that in profit and loss account the assessee has shown substantial expenses

ACIT, Circle--2(1), Chandigarh vs. Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 147/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131,132 /Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., The Acit, C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Vs Circle 2(1), Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 146, 147/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, The Acit, Vs M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Chandigarh. Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 43CSection 50C

necessary forms, charge interest as per law. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act are being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Assessed. Issue demand notice. (Abhinav Agnihotri) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1), Chandigarh 11.1 A perusal of the above would

ACIT, Circle--2(1), Chandigarh vs. Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 146/CHANDI/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 43CSection 50C

Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Circle--2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 132/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 43CSection 50C

Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Circle--2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 131/CHANDI/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 43CSection 50C

M/S Apex Builders, Ludhiana vs. ITO, W-2(1), Ludhiana

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1284/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinamar Gupta, CA (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 40A(3)

these additions, the AO computed the total assessed income at Rs.33,96,780/- and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. Against the order of the AO, the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) reviewed

DCIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Man Industries (India) Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 618/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. R.R. Makwana, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Mr. K. Gopal

Section 143(3)Section 68

assessee contested that there was no concealment of the income or assessee contested that there was no concealment of the income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income and disallowance furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income and disallowance furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income and disallowance was merely made

DCIT CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. Man Industries (I) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 617/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. R.R. Makwana, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Mr. K. Gopal

Section 143(3)Section 68

L T Foods Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-5, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1444/DEL/2019[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Deval, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80GSection 80HSection 80I

verification. The AO had initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) of the Act for concealment of the particulars of income and/ or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income vide notice dated 31-07-2017 and imposed the penalty of Rs. 36,26,752/- vide its order dated ... relevant columns have been marked, more particularly, when the case against the assessee is that they have concealed particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the contention raised by the assessee is liable to be rejected on facts. That apart, this issue can never be a question

High Range Foods Private Limited, Ernakulam vs. DCIT Corporate Cir 1(1), Kochi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 490/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2014-15 High Range Foods Private Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1) Limited, Kochi 28/3030, Vs. Cheruparambath Road, Kadavanthra, Ernakulam-682020 Pan : Aaach6076L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca For Revenue : Smt. Leena Lal (Heard In Hybrid Bench) Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 4

held that 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. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case cited supra, are as follows: – “9. We are not concerned ... 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.” 7. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court