“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

The ADIT (It)-3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Global Cricket Corpn Pte. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 171/MUM/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Dy. Cit(It) – 3(1) M/S. Global Cricket Corpn Pte Ltd. Scindia House, R. No. 132, 1St Floor, C/O. S. R. Batliboi & Co. Vs. 18Th Floor, Express Towers, N. M. Road, Mumbai- 38 Nariman Point, Mumbai-21 Pan/Gir No. Aabcg 7951 L (Revenue) : (Assessee) & Cross Objection No. 83/Mum/2012 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4990/Mum/2011) (Assessment Year: 2003-04) M/S. Global Cricket Corpn Pte Ltd. The Dy. Dit (It)-3(1) C/O. S R B C & Associates Mumbai- 400 038 14Th Floor, The Ruby, Vs. 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 Pan/Gir No. Aabcg 7951 L (Assessee) : (Revenue) : Shri P J Pardiwala/Aarati Sathe Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma : 16.10.2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2023

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)

struck off the irrelevant limb as to whether the penalty was levied for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. AR 4 ITA Nos.171/Mum/2008, 4990/Mum/2011, 4182/Mum/2011 & CO No. 83/Mum/2012 M/s. Global Cricket Corpn Pte Ltd. relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court ... there was no prejudice caused to the assessee and that the penalty was levied both for concealment of income as well as for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available

Mrs Rajani S.Iyer, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal

ITA 2240/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita No. 2239 & 2240/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mrs. Rajani S Iyer, Acit-20(3), 14/222, Bhaskar Bhavan, Mumbai-400001 Vs. Sri Balachandra Road, Matunga, Mumbai-400019. Pan No. Aaopi 9178 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Haridas Bhat Revenue By : Mrs. Mahita Nair, Dr : Date Of Hearing 11/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/10/2023

For Appellant: Mr. Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Mrs. Mahita Nair, DR

Section 143(3)

concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case particulars of income. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case particulars ... concealment of the whether it is for concealment of the particulars of the income or furnishing in particulars of the income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of accurate particulars of income, in such circumstances, levy of the penalty is bad in law n such circumstances, levy of the penalty

Mrs Rajani S. Iyer, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-20(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal

ITA 2239/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2010-2011

For Appellant: Mr. Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Mrs. Mahita Nair, DR

Section 143(3)

Vikas Sharma, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 256/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 256/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Vikas Sharma Quarter No.6-A, Ruabandha Sector, Bhilai, Dist. Durg (C.G.)-490 006 Pan : Ddcps1720P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bhilai, Durg (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal &For Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

Bhilai but the usage of the term “OR” as a conjunction between the two defaults, i.e. “concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income” in the aforesaid SCN’s dated 29.12.2017 & 31.12.2017 in no clear terms conveyed to the assessee the specific default for which ... that the A.O by using the term “OR” as a conjunction between both the defaults, i.e., “concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income”, had failed in his statutory obligation of conveying and validly putting the assessee to notice that w.r.t. the aforesaid additions under

J.P Tobaco Producta Pvt. Ltd vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - Sagar

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 188/JAB/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Oct 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 187 & 188/Jab/2016 Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2003-04 J.P. Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd., Acit Circle-Sagar. Pathariya Phatak, Damoh (M.P.) Vs. Pan No. Aaacj 7141 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. G.N. Purohit, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Abhijeet Shrivastava, Advocate Revenue By : Mr. Saad Kidwai, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 22/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2023

For Appellant: Mr. G.N. Purohit, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Saad Kidwai, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

concealment of specified whether the penalty was initiated for concealment of specified whether the penalty was initiated for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. We find that income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. We find that income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. We find that

J.P Tobaco Producta Pvt. Ltd vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - Sagar

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 187/JAB/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Oct 2023AY 2002-03

For Appellant: Mr. G.N. Purohit, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Saad Kidwai, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Yogendraraj U. Singhvi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 459/SRT/2023[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Surat19 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.459/Srt/2023 (Ay 2007-08) (Hearing In Hybrid Mode) Yogendra Raj U Singhvi, Income Tax Officer-2(3)(8) Cts, 95/4/B-3-4/590, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Vs Village Dindoshi, Surat-395001 Oberoi Garden City, Flat No. 3902, Floor C-Wing, Meter Exquisite, Mumbai. Pan : Anjps 9745 G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

issued by assessing officer in a mechanical manner, without recording the satisfaction, if the notice was foe concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Thus, in absence of specific charge, the action of the assessing officer is vitiated and the order passed on the basis of such ... assessing officer has not strike off the inappropriate portion of the notice, in specifying the charges either ‘for concealment of income’ or for ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income’. The ld AR for the assessee submits that he has also filed copy of assessment order to substantiate that no specific

Smt. Krishna, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-Bhiwadi, Alwar

In the result, both appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 435/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (FCA.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 151(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

account of unexplained investment in agricultural land. On the addition so made, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated for concealing & furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2. The AO passed the penalty order on 21.06.2018 stating that assessee has not filed any explanation or detail and thus she committed ... default by concealing/ (furnishing) inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly he imposed penalty of Rs.2,10,426/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty on the ground that assessee failed to furnish any reply during the appellate proceedings. Submission

Smt. Krishna, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-Bhiwadi, Alwar

In the result, both appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 434/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (FCA.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 151(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Shri Santosh Bhalchandra Powle, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax-22(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2267/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalshri Santosh Vs. Acit-22(3), Bhalchandra Powle, Aayakar Bhavan, 8Th National House, 3Rd M.K.Road, Floor,27 Raghunath Mumbai-400020. Dadaji Street,Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan/Gir No. : Aajpp1107A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms.Aishwarya Vanikar.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Virbhandra Mahjan.Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(2)

total income of the assessee being the same are nature of expenses. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6.3 As per direction of Hon'ble ITAT, the disallowance of Rs. 36,625/- being

Jaisingh H Solanki, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2211/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2211/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Jaisingh H. Solanki बिधम/ Ito-19(2)(1) 25-C Sonarika Apt, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Vs. Nanubhai Desai Road, Road, Mumbai-400004. Chandawadi, Mumbai- 400004. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Acaps6502R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Ujjawal Kumar Chavan (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 24.02.2023 For Ay. 2010-11 Confirming The Action Of The Ao Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. None Appeared For Assessee But Has Filed Written Submission. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is Delay Of 52 Days & The Assessee Has Filed A Sworn Affidavit Dated 12.09.2022. After Going Through The Contents Of The Affidavit, We Are Of The Opinion That There Was Reasonable Cause For Belated Filing Of The Appeal. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Hear The Penalty Appeal On Its Own Merit.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ujjawal Kumar Chavan (Sr

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

penalty to the tune of Rs.5,27,640/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for fault of “concealing of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”. And the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO. And assessee is aggrieved by the action

Manoj Mittal, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2412/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2412/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Manoj Mittal, Dcit H-1, Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, Vs. Central Circle-8, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaipm7274J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

made on account of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act by alleging I.T.A.No.2412/Del/2023 that appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. It is pertinent to note that the appellant is holding 25% share capital of M/s Mittal Construction & Real Estate Company Private Limited. The said ... Rs.5,46,787/- respectively is also a matter of record. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of his I.T.A.No.2412/Del/2023 income, more specifically when the addition of Rs.4,73,526/- was made on the basis of deeming provisions of Section

Sanjay Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-33(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 128/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

quashed. 3. (1) On the facts and circumstances of the case the Id.AO has erred in imposing penalty on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of shifting the business loss from trading in agriculture derivatives to speculative loss and Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming

Rosoboronservice (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground number 2 – 6 [ except 4, of the appeal are restored to the file of the learned AO/TPO to benchmark the international transaction afresh by selecting first the A

ITA 7255/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Deputy Commissioner Of Rosoboronservice (India) Limited Income Tax-15(3)(1) R-700, Ttc Industrial Estate, Room No. 473, Aayakar P.O. Ghansoli, Midc Rabale, Vs. Navi Mumbai- 400701 Bhawan, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcr0040B Assessee By : Mr. Gaurav Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2023

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92(3)Section 92C

A.Y.2014-15 M/s Rosoboronservice (India) Ltd 7.1. The learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealing income. 8. Addition on account of AIR Mismatch 8.1 The learned AO erred in making addition

Heidelberg Cement India Limited, Gurugram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 2(1), Gurugram

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2287/DEL/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Arya, Advocate

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

information as and when required by the AO and the NFAC. Therefore, the NFAC erred in holding that it is a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, whereas the case is fully covered by the Explantion1 to Section 271(1) of the Act. Hence on this ground alone ... report etc. and provided all information as and when required during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, the allegation that the Appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income is baseless, hence on this ground alone the Impugned Order ought to be set aside. The Ld. Counsel submits that NFAC grossly

Heidelberg Cement India Limited, Gurugram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Gurugram

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2286/DEL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Arya, Advocate

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

Heidelberg Cement India Limited, Gurugram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Gurugram

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2285/DEL/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Arya, Advocate

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

Dileshkumar Gordhanbhai Patel, Adipur vs. DCIT, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 100/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Dileshkumar Gordhanbhai Vs. The Dcit, Patel Gandhidham Circle, Venus Plaster Industries, Plot Gandhidham (Kutch) No.89, Ward-2B, Adipur (Kutch) Pan : Aaopp 4484 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11.10.2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” For Short] Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Levying Penalty Of Rs. 5,04,500/- Under Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” For Short] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Ground Raised By The Assessee Is As Under:- “The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Cit(A)] Erred On Facts As Also In Law In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.5,04,500/- Levied U/S 271Aab Of The Act On The Ad-Hoc Disclosure Of Rs.50,45,000/-. The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271Aab Of The Act Is Totally Unjustified On Facts As Also In Law, May Kindly Be Deleted.” 3. The Primary Argument Of The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Against The Levy Of Penalty Was That The Income Surrendered By The Assessee During

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271A

explain away its conduct. The question is whether the assessee has offered any explanation for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." 7.6 Reliance is also place on the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Sandeep Chandak vs. Principal Commissioner of Income

ITO, Ward-31(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sharda Vinod Bhatia, Mumbai

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

ITA 2257/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalito – 31(2)(1), Vs. Sharda Vinod Bhatia, Room No. 248, 2Nd Floor 201, Model Town, Kautilya Bhavan, Mahesh Ashish Units Bkc, Bandra(E), Chs Ltd, Off Jp Road, Mumbai- 400051. 4 Bungalow, Andheri(W), Mumbai-400058. Pan/Gir No. : Aghpb6897P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Rameshwar Meena.Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri.Bharat Kumar.AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

cannot be levied on such adhoc estimated income. The disallowance of purchases on ad-hoc basis does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under the provisions of Section 271(1) (c) of the Act. The Assessing officer Shri Sharda Vinod Bhatia, Mumbai. has not doubted the sales

Nisha Rungta, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without specifically pointing out whether the penalty was proposed on concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Action of the ld. AO is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted ... 25/11/ 2019. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act was initiated by the AO for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and accordingly notice u/s 271(1)(c) was issued by the AO to assessee on 25.11.2019. In response to notice assessee filed a reply stating that as there