← 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

Cidco Employees Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Ward 28(1)(3), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal ITA NO

ITA 697/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 80PSection 80P(4)

claim for deduction of Rs. 56,64,971/– u/s. 80P. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act were separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2. (ii) Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who confirmed assessment order, holding that

Shree Gunatit Jyot Mahila Trust, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward - Exemption, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 326/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 326/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Shree Gunatit Jyot Ito बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Mahila Trust Ward, Exemption Vs. Post Box No.23, Pappaji Vadodara Marg, Vallabh Vidhyanagar, Anand, Gujarat, 388120 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaats8722P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Parin Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/08/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 12.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Charitable Trust Registered Under The Bombay Public Trust Act And

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR
Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 271(1)(c)

after allowing an opportunity to the assessee and penalty of Rs.78,31,400/- was imposed @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. ITA No. 326/Ahd/2024 [Shree Gunatit Jyot Mahila Trust vs. ITO] A.Y. 2016-17 - 3 – 3. Aggrieved with the penalty order ... case of penalty. 4. Ld. NFAC ought to have considered fact that non acceptance of bona fide claim does not lead to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which leads to penalty. 5. The order passed by lower authorities is required to be quashed as same is without recording proper satisfaction

Harshal Suresh Karvir, Palghar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 4477/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Harshal Suresh Karvir National Faceless Assessment Centre 2Nd Floor, E Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru 397, Sutar Ali, Chinchani, Vs. Palghar, Palghar-401 503 Stadium, Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chogule
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

appeal is the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.3,13,774/- on the ground that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The assessee has challenged the penalty order on the following grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... that the ld. A.O. vide notice dated 24.09.2021 u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act has issued the notice for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income whereas the penalty has been levied for concealment of particulars of income. It is also observed that the ld. CIT(A) at para

Nova Promoters and Finlease Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3173/DEL/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Ms.Madhumita Roynova Promoters & Vs. Ito, Ward 13(3) Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Ito Building, I.P. Estate 7, Kapil Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi – 34

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anshul
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

before me was that while show cause notice was issued the AO was not sure and definite whether it is case of "furnishing Inaccurate particulars of income" or "has concealed his income". It was submitted that this fact stands verified from the final findings given ... penalty order who has concluded that it is beyond doubt the assessee has concealed his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of his income as such it is a fit case for imposing a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. It was submitted that when penalty

Kailash Parashar, Pushkar, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3), Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 2(14)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

concealment of particulars of income. In the penalty order AO in last two line at Page 3 has held that assessee has intentionally furnished inaccurate particulars of income whereas on Page 4 he imposed the penalty by holding that assessee intentionally concealed his income. Thus when both at the time ... initiation and at the time of imposition of penalty, the AO is not clear whether the charge is for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income, the penalty so imposed is illegal and bad in law. The Bench relies following case laws.- (1) Kshema Geo Holdings

M/S Pagro Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ITO, W-2(3), Chandigarh

The appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1076/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253

requisite documents. Charge Interest u/s 234A/B/C, if any. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act is being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 25. The Assessee feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the AO’s order dt. 26/12/2016 had filed first appeal before

Chhaya Vikas Shah Legal Heir & Wife of Late Vikas Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, all three appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 584/AHD/2023[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarsl. आयकर अपील सं/ "नधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By : No(S)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

gave relief in penalty on account of this amount) Income concealed 28,93,042/- 12,33,041/- 9,96,596/- as well as furnished inaccurate particulars of ITA Nos.584, 585 and 586/Ahd/2023 Chhaya Vikas Shah Legal Heir & Wife of Late Vikas Shah vs. Dy.CIT Asst. Years ... From the Assessment order it is seen that the AO in the ultimate para on page 7 had initiated penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/ concealment of income...". Thus the primary objection that the AO has simply stated that "Penalty has been initiated separately" is incorrect. Further on this

Ashok Kailash Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO-24(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 716/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

order made u/s 143(3) of the Act recorded his satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings on the ground that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income; 2 Ashok Kailash Jain., AY 2012-13 - in the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act did not score out the limbs ... appellant was considered to be in default; and - in the order levying penalty, firstly he considered the appellant to be in default for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and ultimately levied penalty for concealment of income which change of stand is not permissible as held by the jurisdictional high court

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Pratham Telecom India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 479/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

able to repay these outstanding creditors and that there was no question of paying them outside the books of accounts. 3.4 The term "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income" implies furnishing of details or information about the income which are not in conformity with the facts or truth. This cannot ... made a bona fide legal claim, which was not accepted by the AO. However, it does not mean that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 3.5 XX 3.6 XX 3.7 The additions were made only on account of divergent views taken regarding the material on record

M/S Mascot Construction Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 2(2)(3)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2737/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Mascot Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax Officer 2(2)(3), 3Rd Floor, Indian Mercantile Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Chambers, 14R, Kamani Marg, Mumbai-400020. Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001. Pan No. Aaccm 6531 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Haridas Bhat
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

facts of the case shows that the r, a careful observation of the facts of the case shows that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income from the very appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income from the very appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income ... thereby furnish amount received from the tenant as a 'Capital Receipt' thereby furnish amount received from the tenant as a 'Capital Receipt' thereby furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income. Further, since the appellant had inaccurate particulars of his income. Further, since the appellant had inaccurate particulars of his income. Further

ITO 27(3)(1), Mumbai, Vashi vs. Sudarshan Vithal Kote, Ghatkopar West

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3916/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2010-11 Ito-27(3)(1), Mumbai Sudarshan Vithal Kote

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)

read with Explanation 1 of the Act. The assessing officer has levied penalty of Rs. 13,50,147/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3 Sudarshan Vithal Kote A.Y. 2010-11 4. The assessee filed appeal before

Maaran Multitrading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional Or Joint Or Deputy Or Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Or Income-Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1723/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Maaran Multitrading Addl/Joint/Deputy/Acit Private Limited /Ito, Ward-7(2)(1), Mumbai. 5A Jindal Mansion, Dr. G. Vs. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai- 400026. Pan: Aahcm 1425 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Vinita Shah Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Act, 1961 on the alleged plea that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. ii. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action ... acquiring tenancy rights was a capital asset. The assessing officer has also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee has made payment of professional fees of Rs. 3,58,475/- in relation to purchase of tenancy rights

M/S. Concorde Housing Corporation Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 531/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Assessee had claimed unexplained expenditure nor such incriminating materials were confronted based on which it can be alleged that the Assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars either in scrutiny or penalty proceedings. Yet, the Ld. AO proposed to initiate the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act vide notice ... dated 27.12.2017. The notice was in preprinted format and the words “furnished inaccurate particulars of such income” and no reference to any of the limbs of the Explanation was provided in the show cause notice. He submitted that the Assessee in addition to the submissions made in the scrutiny proceedings

Jitendra Kumar Jain(HUF), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-43(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 22/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: the start of the appellate proceedings or in course of appellate proceedings.”

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act whereby the Ld. AO imposed penalty of Rs 3,42,614/- on the assessee for wilfully furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), where

Jm Financial Property Fund I, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 25(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 1691/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Aggarwal/For Respondent: Mr. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

against the Appellant on proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. count of furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. count of furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. The Grounds stated above are independent

Jm Financial Property Fund I, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 25(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 1689/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Aggarwal/For Respondent: Mr. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

against the Appellant on proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. count of furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. count of furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. The Grounds stated above are independent

Mahavir Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 41(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 133/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh ParmarFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act is initiated for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 5.1. From the above quoted observations and findings of ld. Assessing Officer, it is indiscernible as to how this figure of Rs.26,77,172/- has been arrived

Metro Tyres Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-05, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1873/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv & ShFor Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

1 Metro Tyres Limited Vs. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. PRADIP

Shri Santanu Sanyal, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 41/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 144Section 250

erred on facts and in law in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 2.2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee challenges the impugned order thereby submitting that the appellant was employed with the IBM India

Shri Ram Babu Singh, Indore vs. DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 328/IND/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Ram Babu Singh, Dcit-1(1) C/O Sv Agrawal & Associates, Bhopal Dadi Dham, 24, Joy Builders Colony, Vs. Near Rafael Tower, Old Palasia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aelps9945K Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2024 & 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23 .07.2024

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

quantum appeal has been upheld by this Tribunal vide order dated 5.10.2015 and therefore it is a clear case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by making the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) on incorrect facts. Page 6 of 14 ITANo.328/Ind/2023 Ram Babu Singh 7. We have considered ... factual matrix of the case, the appellant's case has to be considered on separate footing and accordingly held that the appellant furnished inaccurate particulars to make an incorrect claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10). This inference is also supported by the finding in the case of CIT vs. Heil Kalindi