“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

Sri. Sumeru Housing Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1471/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri Nagarajan, Director of the CompanyFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 144Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

have failed to appreciate that the mere disallowance of expenses or claims by the AO does not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. A genuine difference of opinion on the allowability of certain expenses should not be equated with concealment, more particularly when the business is incurring

DCIT, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Varsity Education Management Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 208/HYD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 208/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Varsity Education Income Tax, Central Circle Management (P) Ltd 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadcv6100E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A.V. Raghuram राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT(DR)

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

deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, levied by the Assessing Officer without appreciating the fact that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and hence penalty provisions u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, are attracted and the quantum addition was upheld ... issued and called upon the assessee to explain as to why penalty shall not be levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In response, the assessee submitted that it has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income and that all the facts relating to the issue has been disclosed

Saroj Gupta, Ujjain vs. ITO NFAC, Local Jurisdictional Office Ujjain

ITA 61/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisaroj Gupta, W/O Chandrabhan Gupta, 14, Chandra Bhawan, Fawwara Chowk, Ujjain (Appellant/Assessee) Ito, (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Acapg0409K Assessee By Shri Sharad Jain, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2024 आदेश/Order Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling Aggrieved By Appeal-Order Dated 30.11.2023 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arises Out Of Penalty-Order Dated 05.01.2022 Passed By Learned Nfac, Delhi [“Ao”] U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] For Assessment- Year [“Ay”] 2014-15, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal.

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

proceedings before me for the assessment-year 2014-15, it appear to me that you have concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.” Ld. AR submitted that the notice u/s 274 sets in motion the penalty- proceeding. According to Ld. AR, the notice issued ... language of section 271(1)(c). The Ld. AR contended that by mentioning that the assessee has “concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income” and without striking the inapplicable part, the AO is himself not sure about the default committed by the assessee. According

Aadhunik Infrastructure Development Private Limited, Jalgaon vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jalgaon

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

ITA 439/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

added to the Total Income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings are separately initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) / NFAC challenging the validity of re-assessment

ACIT, Amravati Circle, Amravati vs. Chandrapur Dist Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Chandrapur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 398/NAG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salonkhe

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

particulars thereof and such claim was finally found to be legally unsustainable. Therefore, the penalty could not be levied on the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., 322 ITR 158 (SC). 7. The Tribunal ... inquiry about facts any more. In this backdrop, the Tribunal has concluded that the disallowance cannot be held as an instance of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. Thus, from the facts as emerging on record, it is evident that the assessee, after furnishing all necessary particulars, had made

Chandu Vijayalakshmi, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 805/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.805/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt.Chandu Vijayalakshmi Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(1) Pan:Aflpc2369E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Aluru Venkata Rao, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Shri Aluru Venkata Rao, DR

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) shall not be levied. In response, the assessee submitted that, she has neither concealed particulars of income, nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income and source for cash deposits is also explained out of known source of income. Therefore, provisions of section ... levied minimum penalty of Rs.7,81,933/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the act for concealing particulars of income and also furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A). Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee challenged the penalty levied

Tata Consumer Products Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 373/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR

Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

added back in computation. Penalty proceeding u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initi- ated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. [Addition: 1,44,77,042/-] Tata Consumer Products Ltd. {erstwhile Tata Global Beverages Ltd.} AYs: 2014-15 & 2015-16 6.1 The Ld. TPO had proposed

Tata Consumer Products Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 372/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR

Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

Iincome Tax Officer -30(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Vilas Transport Company, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1272/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri G.J. Ninawe, Sr. DR

Section 40A(3)

finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 01.04.2008 and hence added to the total income of the assessee returned. Penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income are hereby initiated separately.” 4. On further appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the AO by placing reliance

Dwarka Gems Limited, Jaipur vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

ITA 847/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2024AY 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri Harshit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 80I

spelt out as to whether the assessee company has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. It is further submitted that ld. AO had strike off all other paragraph other than “have concealed particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income

ACIT Circle 54(1), New Delhi vs. Swadesh Kumar Mishra, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee i

ITA 6043/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144(1)Section 145(3)Section 24Section 40Section 40A(3)

failure to make TDS or disallowance for cash payment exceeding the limit prescribed u/s 40A(3) would not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income as the incurring of the said expenditure is not in dispute. (Principal CIT v Torque Pharmaceuticals

M/S Himachal Fashion Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ITO, W-6(3), Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 8/CHANDI/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 8/Chd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Danish Abdullah, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 27lSection 80Section 80ASection 80I

account of disallowance claimed by the assessee. Simultaneously, penalty proceedings under section 27l(l)(c) of I. T. Act, 1961 were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. During the penalty proceedings, the Assessee submitted that since the return of income was a belated return, so this ... order to be covered, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The instant case was not the case of concealment of the income. That was not the case of the revenue either

Ms Rajmal Lakhichand, Jalgaon vs. DCIT, Jalgaon

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

ITA 1206/PUN/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Sept 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1206/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ms. Rajmal Lakhichand, Vs. Dcit, Jalgaon. 169, Balaji Peth, Jalgaon- 425001. Pan : Aacfr8609L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak : Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.09.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Grounds Of Appeal Stated Below Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1) That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.62,95,800 U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Said Penalty Be Cancelled. 2) Gross Profit Addition

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak

Section 142Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(a)

appellant. 4.3 THAT the levy of penalty without specifying the charge as to whether it is for concealing income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and without striking out the inappropriate 3 words in the SCN u/s. 274 is bad in law and as such deserves to be cancelled ... interest on certain loans may result into a disallowance out of interest paid to others but the assessee cannot be said to have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income or concealed any income, as all the facts were disclosed truly & fully. In this regard, LD AR relied on the judgement

DCIT Cir - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 574/MUM/2007[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Us, Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:-

Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

Revenue expenditure’ had been held to be a capital expenditure then it does not lead to levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the said penalty. Accordingly

N R Constructions, Kakinada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kakinada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/VIZ/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 18/Viz/2024 (धििाधरणिरध/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) N R Constructions V. Acit – Circle – 1 Kakinada 2-59-7, Shanthi Nagar Kakinada – 533003 Andhra Pradesh [Pan : Aabfn7969A] (अपीलार्/ Appellant) (प्र्/ Respondent) यरद्त्य्पयतय्यिध/ Assessee Represented By : Ms. Keerthana, Ar र्जसय्पयतय्यिध/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar सु्व्ईसम्पहो्ेय्यतयि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 12.08.2024 घोषण्य्त्र्ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri S Balakrishnan: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-

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

ought to have appreciated the fact that even in the order, it was mentioned that the assessee has concealed income and furnishing inaccurate particulars instead of specifying the limb of said penalty proceedings. 3. Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that ... order mentioned that penalty is imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and satisfaction by virtue of explanation 1 to Sec 271(1 of the Act, without appreciating the fact that Explanation 1 could be invoked only if there is a concealment of income and not furnishing of inaccurate particulars

Moni Kumar Subba, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-08, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3794/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usshri Moni Kumar Subba Vs. Acit 118, Subba Farm House, Central Circle – 08, Vill. Sultanpur, Mehrauli New Delhi Gurgaon Road Delhi – 110 030 Pan No. Aasps 1484 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R. S. Singhvi, C.A. Shri Satyajeet Goel, C.A. Shri Rajat Garg, C.A. Revenue By Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.09.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am :

Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(47)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 50C

ITAT. A mere different view on the disclosed facts by different authorities per se could not tantamount to ‘ furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’ or ‘concealment of particulars of income’ in any manner. Thus, mere disallowance or additions in quantum proceedings ipso facto would not invite imposition of penalty under section

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh vs. Unipro Techno Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Chandigarh

In the result, the order of the ld CIT(A) is confirmed and the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 693/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri A.K. Sood, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80I

operation started on 13.04.2010 and show cause why depreciation claimed by you should not be disallowed as it seems that you are furnishing inaccurate particulars. Please also furnish whether you have claimed such exemption u/s 80- lA in the previous year also or not? 12. Further at para

Diamond Tools Industries, Mumbai vs. 31(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 3333/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Hariom TulsyanFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(a)

basis of penalty made at assessment stage are on account of deliberate, malafide intention of the assessee to conceal the particulars or nor furnished inaccurate particulars. 4. That That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, erred ... 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

Diamond Tools Industries, Mumbai vs. 31(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 3254/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Hariom TulsyanFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(a)

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Piramal Enterprises Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3488/MUM/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35

assessment order u/s 143(3) of the IT Act dated 31.12.2008, the AO has covered both the limbs of initiating penalty i.e. I. furnishing inaccurate particulars 2. concealing the particulars of income And in addition to above, initiating penalties for excess claims / losses etc. Hence the penalty order passed ... said appeal before the ITAT, the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice for levy of the penalty on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income by the assessee with regard to following disallowance/additions *1. Compensation received on Termination of Distributor agreement being assessed as Business Income amounting