“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. Tropex Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. (Successor to Ujjawal Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(4), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1371/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.1371&1815/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Tropex Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To Ujjawal Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.).............................……….……Appellant 113, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata -1. [Pan:Aabct1459N] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(4), Kolkata............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Dutta, Cit-Dr & Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 30, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.03.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order 23.03.2015 & Another Order Dated 26.12.2023 Of The Cit(A) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Dated 28.09.2015 Against The Assessee. The Assessment Was Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’] Dated 23.03.2015 & The Penalty Proceedings Were Initiated U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 28.09.2015, Which Is Arising Out Of The Same Assessment Order Dated 23.03.2015. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Stated At The Bench That Since The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same Assessment Order & Relating To The Same Assessee, Therefore, They May Be Heard Together & Decided On Merits Of The Case. The Ld. Ar Has Further Stated That Ita No.1371/Kol/2024 Is Delayed By 404 Days & Ita

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

provisions of the Act. Additionally, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of the income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income upon the assessee. The ld. AR argued that since summons were not duly served upon the director of the assessee company as well

Daga Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle -18, Delhi

ITA 790/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roydaga Commodities Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-18 Private Limited Ara Centre, Jhandewalan 114 New Delhi House, 27 Delhi Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, Delhi - 110001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcs5420N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Pranav Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

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

income as well, the copies whereof has been duly submitted before us. Further that while imposing penalty on 29.09.2022 Ld. AO allegation furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee as recorded therein. Under this fact and circumstances of the matter, it is argued that recording of satisfaction ... Assessing Officer that there was concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee though sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings, the same has not been adhered to, rather the reasons first recorded on 23.03.2022 is on both the limbs. It is a settled principle

Ashok Kumar Grover, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-61(1), Delhi

ITA 2893/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roysh. Ashok Kumar Grover Vs. Acit 19, Siri Fort Road Circle 61(1) New Delhi-110049 Delhi-110001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aagpg6935L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

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

income as well, the copies whereof has been duly submitted before us. Further that while imposing penalty on 07.12.2021 Ld. AO alleged furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee as recorded therein. Under this fact and circumstances of the matter, he argued that recording of satisfaction by the Assessing ... Officer that there was concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee though sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings, the same has not been adhered to, rather the reasons first recorded on 29.11.2016 is on both the limbs. It is a settled principle

DCIT, Pune vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 654/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Shri P R Mane

Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 44

disallowed and added back in the income of assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 6. The Assessing Officer further noted that the taxable profits and gains are required to be calculated considering the surplus / deficit arrived ... disallowed and added back in the income of assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 7. In appeal, the CIT(A) / NFAC following the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the preceding assessment years

DCIT, Pune vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 653/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Shri P R Mane

Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 44

Asst CIT Cen Cir 20 Cen RG 4, Mumbai vs. Nissan Copper P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the all 10 appeals of the assessee and the revenue are 8

ITA 2239/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C Kanojiya &

Section 250Section 40Section 43B

levied u/s.271(1)(c) when the assessee has wrongly claimed deduction u/s.801IB on non-801B income of Rs.10,79,823/-, thereby furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income leading to concealment of income." 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in stating

A.C.I.T. Central Circle 20, Mumbai vs. Nissan Copper Ltd., Gujrat

ITA 4590/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C Kanojiya &

Section 250Section 40Section 43B

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Nissan Copper Ltd, Gujrat vs. ACIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

In the result, the all 10 appeals of the assessee and the revenue are 8

ITA 3974/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C Kanojiya &

Section 250Section 40Section 43B

Nissan Copper Ltd, Gujrat vs. ACIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

ITA 3973/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C Kanojiya &

Section 250Section 40Section 43B

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Nissan Copper Ltd, Gujrat vs. ACIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

In the result, the all 10 appeals of the assessee and the revenue are 8

ITA 3972/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C Kanojiya &

Section 250Section 40Section 43B

Nissan Copper Ltd, Gujrat vs. ACIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

In the result, the all 10 appeals of the assessee and the revenue are 8

ITA 3971/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C Kanojiya &

Section 250Section 40Section 43B

Nissan Copper Ltd, Gujrat vs. ACIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

In the result, the all 10 appeals of the assessee and the revenue are 8

ITA 3970/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C Kanojiya &

Section 250Section 40Section 43B

Nissan Copper Ltd., Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Central Circle 20, Mumbai

ITA 2601/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C Kanojiya &

Section 250Section 40Section 43B

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ACIT 17 & 28, Mumbai vs. Nissan Copper Ltd

In the result, the all 10 appeals of the assessee and the revenue are 8

ITA 5577/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C Kanojiya &

Section 250Section 40Section 43B

Sukumar Buildwell Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 26, New Delhi

ITA 2101/DEL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Dcit Central Circle 26 M/S Sukumar Buildwell Private Limited, 914, 9Th New Delhi Floor, D-Mall, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi- 110034 Pan :Aaics7517H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Shilpi Jain, Ca Department By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr, Dr

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

circumstances of the matter, she argued that recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer that there was concealment Page2 of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee though sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings, the same has not been adhered to, rather the reasons first ... cause notice under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act whether he had to proceed on the basis of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of the said income as is evident from the order dated 29.03.2016. The initiation of proceedings is violation of the prescribed provision under Section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ankur Agrawal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2308/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit 4(1)(1), Mumbai Ankur Agrawal 2401, 2402, Anmol Pride, Opp. Vs. Patel Auto Petrol Pump, Off Sv Road Goregaon West, Mumbai- 400062. Pan: Akopa 7201 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

without appreciating the fact that proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income with a view to concealment of income? 7. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add new ground which may be necessary.” 2. Fact

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(1), Bengaluru vs. Smt. Vankadara Padmavathi, Hospet, Karnataka

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1374/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar E., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

defective without considering the facts of the case where the Assessing officer in the penalty order has clearly established that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income?” 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 31.10.2012 declaring total income ... could be imposed on the assessee. 60. Clause (c) deals with two specific offences, that is to say, concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. No doubt, the facts of some cases may attract both the offences and in some cases there may be overlapping

Partap Singh, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Faridabad

ITA 1858/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54F

capital gain and added back to the total income of the assessee. I am satisfied that the assessee has concealed his income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income in respect of the amount as discussed above, in terms of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty notice

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Vipul Limited, Delhi

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

ITA 1047/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Before Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice & And & Shri M. Balaganesh Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Shri M. Balaganesh Shri M. Balaganesh Accountantmember Member

For Appellant: Shri Amit Katoch, Senior DRFor Respondent: None

Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

deductions claimed by the assessee were on account of inadvertent mistake and not due to any deliberate attempt to conceal its income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In fact, after verifying the facts and evidences on record, the first appellate authority has recorded a clear cut factual finding that ... assessee has not deliberately concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. That being the factual position on record, in our view, the first appellate authority was justified in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. Even otherwise also, on a perusal

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Vipul Limited, Delhi

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

ITA 1046/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Amit Katoch, Senior DRFor Respondent: None

Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)