← 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

Gupta Engineers and Contractor, Uttar Pradesh vs. Additional Commission of Income Tax, Special Range Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2844/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2844 और 2850/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2014-15 & 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri P.S Kashyap, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 264Section 271(1)(c)

case of Aero Traders P. Ltd. (supra) has held that where profit was estimated after rejection of books, imposition of penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was not justified. Similar view has been expressed in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company (supra) and in the case

Aahvan Agencies Limited (Now Merged With Aagam Agencies P. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1530/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Tr Senthil Kumaraahvan Agencies Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of (Now Merged With Aagam Income-Tax, Agencies (P.) Limited), Circle-1(1)(1), 1St Floor, Akshay, 53, Shrimali Ahmedabad Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 [Pan : Aacca 3738 Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.12.2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

invoking provisions of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act overlooking the fact that the appellant has neither concealed income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Aahvan Agencies Ltd Vs. DCIT Asst.Year: 2015-16 - 2– 2. Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal ... against the provisions of law as the show cause notice issued is vague and no specific charge is alleged as regards concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.”- 3. In this case, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of loss on derivatives amounting to Rs.81,84,285/-. Consequent to the disallowance

Rashmi Gupta, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1)(1), G B Nagar

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

ITA 3491/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahmn & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Rashmi Gupta, Vs. Ito, Circle 5(1)(1), N G Nagar (Up) Nh-01, Felix Hospital, Sector 137, Noida G B Nagar, Up-201305 Pan :Adrpt7601G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

detailed reply dated 26.09.2018 mentioning all relevant details. Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars. 4. The matter went in first appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals). Ld. CIT(Appeals), in the light of the observations and decision rendered

Inocme Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Nagpur vs. Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank, Nagpur

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for A

ITA 5/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 1Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 41(4)

penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 initiated separately for concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6. On appeal, the learned CIT(A), vide Para–7.0 to 7.5, deleted the addition in respect of interest accrued

Inocme Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Nagpur vs. Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank, Nagpur

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for A

ITA 4/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 1Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 41(4)

penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 initiated separately for concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6. On appeal, the learned CIT(A), vide Para–7.0 to 7.5, deleted the addition in respect of interest accrued

Baba Akhila Sai Jyothi Industries Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 987/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.987/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Baba Akhila Sai Jyothi Vs. Dy. Cit Industries Private Ltd Circle 1 ( 1 ) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadcb3413C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A.V. Raghuram राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated, 6/8/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law. 2. The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Sustaining The Penalty Of Rs.5,80,424/- Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 270A Of The I.T. Act, 1961. Page 1 Of 8

For Appellant: Advocate A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 270ASection 270A(6)Section 40A(7)

Jyothi Industries P Ltd assessee while submitting the return is a human error and therefore, the assessee is not guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. 4. On the other hand, the learned DR has relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted ... absence of due care, in a case such as the present does not mean that the assessed is guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income. 20. We are of the opinion, given the peculiar facts of this case, that the imposition of penalty

Ramji Lal, Tonk vs. ITO WD, Tonk

ITA 944/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Anoo

assessed as Income from other sources' Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 11. Let’s see as to what is stated to have been produced by the assessee before the Assessing Officer in support of his claim

Osho Forge Ltd., Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Ludhiana

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed and penalty is deleted

ITA 523/CHANDI/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yaday & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 523/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Osho Forge Ltd., Vs. Dcit, बनाम D-42, Phase V, Circle 1, Focal Point, Ludhiana, Ludhiana Punjab 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaco3362I अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sarabjit Garg, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Ved Parkash Kalia, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2024

For Appellant: Sh. Sarabjit Garg, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ved Parkash Kalia, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

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,)** ** ** (iii) in the cases referred ... 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 523 -Chd-2024- Osho Forge Ltd., Ludhiana 5 penalty is concerned, the penalty imposed under

Balaji Metal and Sponge Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1486/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

wherein also appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by holding that it is very clear that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income which attracts the provisions of Section u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the present appeal ... clearly speaks that it can only be applied when (i) an assessee has concealed particulars of income and (ii) an assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act speaks further that it is leviable

Hubli Saraku Saganikedrara Sahakari Pattina Sangha Niyamita, Hubballi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Hubli

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for both these years

ITA 1663/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Hemant Pai and Ms. Smrithi Athreya, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra
Section 143Section 271Section 80Section 80P(2)(a)

have been levied where there are two judicial opinions making the deduction highly debatable. iii. that the penalty proceedings were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, but the penalty was levied for concealing the particulars of income and therefore also in view of the decision of the honourable Karnataka ... 1663/Bang/2024 Page 5 of 6 paragraph number 10 of the penalty order also the learned assessing officer has correctly held that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. Therefore, it is not the case that the initiation of penalty was on one limb and same was levied on another

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for both these years

ITA 1662/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Hemant Pai and Ms. Smrithi Athreya, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra
Section 143Section 271Section 80Section 80P(2)(a)

have been levied where there are two judicial opinions making the deduction highly debatable. iii. that the penalty proceedings were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, but the penalty was levied for concealing the particulars of income and therefore also in view of the decision of the honourable Karnataka ... 1663/Bang/2024 Page 5 of 6 paragraph number 10 of the penalty order also the learned assessing officer has correctly held that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. Therefore, it is not the case that the initiation of penalty was on one limb and same was levied on another

Sh. Mukut Behari Agarwal, Jaipur vs. The DCIT, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1067/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 69A

bogus profit earned through reversal trade. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 have been also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income.” From perusal of above, it is evident that in entire proceedings, stand of AO has been changing consistently as to nature

Shri. Aslam Pasha, Chikkaballapur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikkaballapur

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

ITA 1335/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Anjan Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 2Section 264Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

deleted. 5. The defective notice did not indicated whether it was issued to the assessee for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing officer failed to specifying the default in his notice. 6. Usually Department uses Printed Penally Notices, but in the assessee's case ... where no such satisfaction is recorded. v. even in the penalty order, there is no specific charge about the concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, but the ld. AO has stated that total tax on concealed income is Rs.21,76,568. The tax is concealed that

Mr. Nitesh Shah, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms for statistical purposes

ITA 4176/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(C)Section 274

appeal ex-parte against the penalty order 2 Mr. Nitesh Shah dated 29.03.2019 passed u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2. The brief facts under appeal state that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in Ferrous and Non-ferrous Metals ... account of non-genuine purchases. The proceedings u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(C) of the Act were separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income chargeable to tax and learned assessing officer levied penalty of Rs. 2,56,773/- vide penalty order dated 29.03.2019 passed

Hamaja Mohammed Malpekar, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ratnagiri Ward, Ratnagiri

ITA 264/PUN/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2024

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194C

Rs.82,35,603/- is disallowed and added to business income of assessee. Penal proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (ii) Addition of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act by observing ... treated as unexplained credits within the meaning of provisions of section 68 of the Income-tax Act,1961. Since the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, penal proceedings under section 274 read with Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act,1961 are initiated

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cirle 1, Kolhapur vs. Hamaja Mohammed Malpekar, Maharashtra

ITA 23/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194C

Rs.82,35,603/- is disallowed and added to business income of assessee. Penal proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (ii) Addition of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act by observing ... treated as unexplained credits within the meaning of provisions of section 68 of the Income-tax Act,1961. Since the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, penal proceedings under section 274 read with Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act,1961 are initiated

DCIT14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Offshore Marinetech Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5307/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable to be imposed only where the assessee has concealed its particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Action of making addition on ad–hoc basis does not result into imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and hence ... found, then merely because addition has been sustained by applying adhoc GP rate, it cannot be said that it is a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income and accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT (A) deleting the penalty is upheld and consequently the grounds

DCIT-CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. Shahrukh Khan, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 490/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

Villa to the tune of Rs. 56,40,190/-. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. 3. Vide order dated 30.03.2018 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the AO did not levy ... this Act, is satisfied that any person— Page | 4 ITA No. 490/Mum/2024 Shahrukh Khan (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of [such income, or Thus, for imposing the penalty, the following requirements is to be satisfied:- i) That the assessee has concealed the particulars

Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2)(1), Mumbai, Income Tax Department vs. Monarch Technobuild Private Limted, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 1287/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail: A.Y. : 2012-13 C.O. No. 172/Mum/2024 A.Y. : 2012-13 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1287/M/24)

For Appellant: Shri Snehal ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sunil A. Umap, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68Section 69A

accordingly assessed u/s 68 of the Act. Penalty proceedings are separately initiated u/s 271(1)(c) r w Explanation 1 there-under, for furnishing inaccurate particulars income. (Alternatively, the amount could also fall u/s 69A of the Act, as the money is not explained in the hands of the assessee ... 243A, 2348 and 234C of the Act. Penalty proceedings are separately initiated u/s 271(1)(c) r w Explanation 1 there-under for furnishing inaccurate particulars income.” 8.1. On further appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition, observing as under: “I have perused the facts of the case, the assessment

Nirmal M. Mulchandani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-25(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4388/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhrinirmal M. Mulchandani V/S. Ito 25(1)(4), Mumbai 303, Vrajdeep, बनाम 220, 2Nd Floor, Kautilya Chandawarka, R. Road, Bhavan, Bkc, Eksar, Bandra(East), Mumbai-400092 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aflpmo757K Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी ..

For Appellant: Shri Vijay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Laxmi Kant
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

interest expenses - Rs. 82,600/- iii. On account of explained cash credit - Rs. 20,000/- 4. The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income Ld. AO levied penalty of Rs. 1,10,510/- after observing that the assessee was not able to produce requisite supporting documents ... support of expenses claimed by him and was also unable to explain source of cash deposits. He, therefore, held that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of his income with the sole intention of evaded the tax and accordingly it was a fit case for imposition of the penalty