“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

Sh. Anoop Kumar Gupta, Ajmer vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Ajmer

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

ITA 939/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

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

notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) and the order passed there against without specifying whether the charge is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is illegal & bad in law and be quashed.” 3. The brief fact of the case is that assessee filed return of income ... Rs.20,64,020/-. On the disallowance so made, the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated for concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, the notice u/s 274 dt. 27.12.2016 (PB 11) was issued for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

Leo Realtors, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3677/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Us The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds:- “1) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

provision of section 68 of the I. T. Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6. Before the ld. CIT (A) assessee apart from challenging the validity of reopening submitted that there is no such material available

Rukmani Wires Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-21(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 5481/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarrukmani Wires Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, G-1087, Dsiidc Industrial Circle-1(2), Complex Area, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaccr7552F

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 115QSection 143(3)Section 18Section 271(1)Section 46ASection 48

initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the pretext that assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. This quantum assessment was accepted by the assessee by not preferring any further appeal. Accordingly, the penalty was levied ... vide order dated 25.03.2018 that assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. This was confirmed by the ld CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to understand that assessee company has shown negative income

Soma Textiles & Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/AHD/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2008-09

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

assessee replied. After taking cognisance of the reply, the Assessing Officer held that the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the assessee company had furnished inaccurate particulars of income with ulterior motive to the tune of Rs.4,21,43,500/- and imposed penalty at Rs.1,43,24,576/- under Section ... further submitted that merely making of a claim which is not sustainable in law by itself will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income of the assessee. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts

Palavesakannu Palani, Tirunelveli vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tirunelveli

ITA 1578/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1575, 1576, 1577 & 1578/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2013-14,2015-16 & 2015-2016) Palavesakannu Palani, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 28, Ram Nagar, Ward 1, Thiyagaraja Nagar, Tirunelveli. Palamkottai, Tirunelveli 627 002. [Pan: Awvpp 9442L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Kathir, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms Kavitha, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Kavitha, IRS, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271A for the failure to maintain books of accounts and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Aggrieved with the enhanced assessment, the appellant has filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 3. On further appeal

Shriram Fortune Solutions Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1567/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1567/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-2020) Shriram Fortune Solutions Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 123, Angappa Naciken Street, Income Tax, Chennai 600 001. Corporate Circle 3(1) Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs 7708N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha, IRS, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

doubted but the absence of due care in cases such as the present does not mean that the assessee is guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income. Similarly, in the case of Baroque Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd. [2022] 137 taxmann. com 94 (Gujarat) it is held

Kanan Knitwear, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 23(1), Piramal Chambers, Mumbai

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

ITA 1993/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Anil J Sathe, CAFor Respondent: ShriP.D. Chougule (Addl.CIT) SR DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

mere making 1 of a claim which is not sustainable in law by itself would not amount to concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty order i wherein the charge for levying penalty was distinct from

The E & Nf Railway Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 37, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 709/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, The E&Nf Railway Co- Circle-37, Operative Bank Ltd. 3, Govt. Place (West), 34A & B, Sashi Bhusan Vs. Dey Street, Room No.13, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700 012 Kolkata-700 001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaae3431A Assessee By : Shri N.C. Mondal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Bonnine Debbarma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri N.C. Mondal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bonnine Debbarma, DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)

initiated the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and finally levied the penalty of ₹44,00,917/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 05. Before us the learned counsel for the assessee referring various decisions including that of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case ... assessee and the alleged penalty has been wrongly levied for inaccurate computation of income by the assessee but there being no case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 06. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has supported the orders of the learned lower authorities. 07. We have heard

Fabrikant Trading (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 474/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi/Ms. KetkiFor Respondent: Ms Usha Gaikwad, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

submitted that the AO has not specified whether the penalty has been levied for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The learned AR in support of his submission relied on various decisions of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal including the decision of the Larger Bench

DCIT-CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. Raheja Universal Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4847/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Respondent: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, CA

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH

Smt. Maya K. Dharwani, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2094/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2094/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Maya K. Dharwani The Income Tax Officer Block No.88, B Ward बनाम/ Ward-7(2)(3) Opp. Railway Station Ahmedabad V/S. Kuber Nagar Ahmedabad - 382 340 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aefpd 1506 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) ….. "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54ESection 54F

deduction u/s.54F of the Act of Rs.20,00,000/-. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars. 4. The assessee filed an appeal with the Ld.CIT(A) and the Tribunal relating to disallowing the deductions. The Tribunal vide its order dated ... income with the said claim was an afterthought. The AO calculated the amount of concealed amount of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) by furnishing inaccurate particulars as Rs.62,00,000/- and imposed a penalty of Rs.12,77,200/- to the extent of 100% of tax sought to be evaded

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. S. Deepalakshmi, Panruti

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 991/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:991/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Ms. S. Deepalakshmi, Income Tax, Vs. No.190, Annai Indira Gandhi Central Circle -2(2), Salai, Chennai. Panruti – 607 108. Pan: Awtpd 8317Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Smt. R. Anita, Addl. Cit ""यथ"क" ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Chennai - 19 Dated 13.02.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cuddalore Circle, Cuddalore For The Assessment Year 2016-17 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 31.12.2018. 2. The Sole Issue In This Appeal Of Revenue Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Deleting The Penalty Levied By Ao U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.51,18,200/- For The Reason That There Is No Specific Charge Framed While Initiating Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act I.E., Whether Assessee Has Concealed The Particulars Of Income Or Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

For Appellant: Smt. R. Anita, Addl. CITFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

specific charge framed while initiating penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act i.e., Whether assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. We have heard ld. Senior DR and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Brief facts are that the assessee filed ... penalty is invalid as the AO has not specified in the notice whether the penalty is levied for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. He further contended that the AO has not struck of the inapplicable words in the notice u/s.274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act and therefore

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 20(1), Mumbai vs. Jignesh Harshad Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee and revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3182/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt. Renu Jauhrijignesh Harshad Mehta V/S. National Faceless Appeal 16/40, 10Th Floor, बनाम Centre, Delhi Navjeevan Society, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpm4811C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Assistant Commissioner Of V/S. Jignesh Harshad Mehta Income Tax, Circle 20(1) बनाम 16/40, 10Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Piramal Navjeevan Society, Mumbai Chambers, Lalbaug, Central, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400008 Mumbai-400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpm4811C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Krishnakumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

total income of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Is initiated for concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of Income.” 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, when the revenue has made the addition to the extent of only

Jignesh Harshad Mehta, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee and revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2680/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Krishnakumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

M/S Michelin Global Mobility Sa., Switzerland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – Circle Int. Tax 2 (2)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2657/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi22 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.2656 & 2657/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2015-16 & 2016-17)

For Appellant: Ms. Ananaya KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR

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

assessment order dated 11.02.2019 has recorded satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”. While levying penalty vide order dated 15.09.2021, the AO levied penalty on the limb of concealment of income. She submitted that order ... order shows that the AO has recorded satisfaction for initiation of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the charge of “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”. However, while levying 3 ITA Nos. 2656 & 2657/DEL/2024 (AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17) penalty vide order dated 15.09.2021, the AO has levied

M/S Michelin Global Mobility Sa, Switzerland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2656/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi22 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.2656 & 2657/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2015-16 & 2016-17)

For Appellant: Ms. Ananaya KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Amravati & Chandrapur Circle, Amravati vs. Chandrapur District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd., Chandrapur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 89/NAG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

issued notice dated 26/02/2016, under Chandrapur District Central Co–operative Bank section 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. The assessee has submitted before the Assessing Officer during the penalty proceedings that the assessee made a bona fde claim ... excess of its eligibility i.e. in excess of the amount of provision for bad doubtful debts provided in its books and, has thus furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. In view of the above and considering the fact that the assesse is not permitted to claim deduction in excess