“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

Shri Kanjibhai B. Rangani, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/RJT/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. DR

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

deleted penalty levied by Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c), as, making unsustainable claim could neither amount to concealment nor amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Kanjibhai Bhimjibhai Rangani vs. ITO Asst.Year –2007-08 6. Accordingly, looking into the facts of the instant case

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ald Automotive Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes on the afore-said terms of earlier year

ITA 6386/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6386/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit-3(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Ald Automotive Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 13, Floor, Maker 400020. Chamber-Iv, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafca0924K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Agrawal Revenue By: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-8, Mumbai Dated 25.07.2017 For The Ay 2012-13. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That This Is A Second Round Before This Tribunal. In The First Round, The Tribunal Has Passed Order (Ita. No.6386/Mum/2017) By Order Dated 10.04.2019 Wherein The Tribunal Had Adjudicated Ground No. 1 Preferred By The Revenue. But Did Not Adjudicate Ground No. 2 Preferred By Revenue. Therefore, The Revenue Preferred Miscellaneous Application (Ma) No. 573/Mum/2019 Which Was Decided On 02.06.2021, Wherein Tribunal Was Pleased To Recall The Order Passed In The First Round Dated 10.04.2019 For The Limited Purpose Of Adjudicating Ground No. 2. Thus, This Appeal Has Come Up For Hearing For The Limited Purpose Of Adjudicating Ground No. 2 Which Reads As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (DR)

Section 143(3)

brought to tax as income for the year under consideration. The penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation-1 are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of income chargeable to tax.” 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal

Prashant Manohar Bhagwat, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur

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

ITA 86/RPR/2023[2014-5]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 86/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prashant Manohar Bhagwat H. No.11, South Avenue, Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Ahfpb6105K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

supra), 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 30.12.2016 and 22.05.2017 in no clear terms conveyed to the assessee the specific defaults ... 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 clearly failed in his statutory obligation of conveying and validly putting the assessee to notice that 10 Prashant Manohar Bhagwat

Shri Gopal Goushala, Barmer vs. ITO (Exemption), Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 108/JODH/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2016-17 Sh. Gopal Goushala, Income Tax Officer, C/O D. Kansara & Associates, Vs (Exemption), Jodhpur Ca’S 84, Narpat Nagar, Opportunity Shyam Restourant Pal Road, Jodhpur (Raj) 342001 Pan: Aaatg2071M Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Prerana Choudhary-Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 16.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Gopal Goushala Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 Jodhpur Dated 12.02.2020 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1.That The Lower Authorities Erred In Computing/Sustaining The Assessment Made Ex Parte U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That The Lower Authorities Erred In Not Allowing Benefits Of Exemption U/S 11 Of The It Act To The Trust Duly Registered U/S 12Aa. 3. That The Lower Authorities Erred In Framing Assessment In The Status Of Aop Instead Of Religious & Charitable Trust.” Sh. Gopal Goushala

Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

submit proof of its registration u/s 12AA, therefore, exemption claimed for surplus of Rs. 31,16,825/- is disallowed. Since the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is also initiated on this issue. During the year under consideration, the assessee society's gross ... order and challan are enclosed with this order. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is also initiated for non-compliance of notice

Tirupati Balaji Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Panipat vs. ITO, Panipat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4090/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B. R. R. Kumartirupati Balaji Textiles Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, Opp Babar Pur Mandi, G. T. Ward-1, Road, Panipat Panipat (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaact5716B Assessee By : Shri Satyam Aneja, Adv Revenue By: Shri Ravi Kant Choudhary, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/06//2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10/08/2023

For Appellant: Shri Satyam Aneja, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

concrete evidence has been brought on record by Tirupati Balaji Textiles Pvt. Ltd the AO to establish that the assessee as either furnished inaccurate particulars of income or had concealed particulars of income therefore, in view of various judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High Court and coordinate ... income represents the returned loss. In para 8 the AO while imposing the penalty recorded findings that the penalty is being imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealed income which shows that even at the time of imposition of penalty the AO himself was not clear

Khomram Chandrawanshi (HUF), Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur

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

ITA 165/RPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 165/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Khomram Chandrawanshi (Huf) House No.18, Ring Road Chowk, Krishnasakha Society, Rohinipuram, Raipur-492 001 (C.G) Pan : Aakhk2082E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 4

supra), 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 08.12.2016 and 07.06.2017 in no clear terms conveyed to the assessee the specific defaults ... 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 clearly failed in his statutory obligation of conveying and validly putting the assessee to notice that w.r.t. the addition

Vikesh Chaturbhuj Agrawal, Nagpur vs. I.T.O. Ward -4(1), Nagpur

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

ITA 386/NAG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh SindhwaniFor Respondent: Smt. Rashmi Mathur

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

Assessing Officer had proceeded to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) vide order dated 29.10.2013 holding that the 3 assessee guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and imposed penalty of Rs.11,21,383/-. 5. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, an appeal was filed before ... contended before us that the Assessing Officer ought not to have levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by holding the assessee guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income without giving a finding as to which particulars filed by the assessee are found to be false. 8. On the other hand

Rajdev Steel (India), Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1430/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamchandranFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

without mentioning specifically as to whether penalty is sought to be levied for "concealing the particulars of his income" or "furnishing inaccurate particulars Rajdev Steel (India) ITA no.1430/Mum./2023 of his income" in the notice issued under Section 274 and, therefore, the order passed may please be declared as invalid ... submitted that the AO has not specified whether the penalty has been levied for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR”) vehemently relied upon the order passed by the lower authorities. 7. We have considered

DCIT- Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Itd Cementation India Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 642/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle- M/S Itd Cementation India 5(1), Ltd., Vs. Room No. 1928, 19Th Floor, National Plastic Building, A- Air India Building, Nariman Subhash Road, Paranjape B Point, Scheme, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aaact 1426 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Mr. Ram Prakash Rastogi

Section 115JSection 14ASection 37

initiated separately for furnishing tax Act, 1961 are initiated separately for furnishing tax Act, 1961 are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. inaccurate particulars of income.” 3. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed re On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed relief to the assessee

Vijaybhan Singh Rajput, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(4), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Vijaybhan Singh Rajput, I.T.O., Plot No. 131/3, Near Shrisati Tex Ward-2(3)(4), Vs. Prints, Gidc, Pandesara, Surat. Surat. Pan No. Abxpr 3970 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54F

also made addition of Rs. 1.20 lacs on account of low household withdrawal. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars. On appeal against the addition in quantum assessment, the assessee was allowed part relief on addition of household expenses and other addition under section 50C was upheld. After ... given show cause notice dated 09/02/2017. No reply was furnished by assessee and it is a fit case for levy of penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars to the extent of Rs. 46,76,143/- by understating 2 Vijaybhan Singh Rajput

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-4(2), Central Range-4, Mumbai vs. M/S Knight Riders Sports Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1538/MUM/2023[F.Y. 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 255(3)Section 271(1)(c)

catering charges 4. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the reason that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars. The Assessing Officer held that the CIT(A) in the quantum appeal has upheld the additions / disallowances and, therefore, the provisions of section ... settled position that when the additions made in the assessment order, on the basis of which penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars is levied, are deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty. Accordingly no penalty can survive and the same is liable to be cancelled

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-4(2), Central Range-4, Mumbai vs. M/S Knight Riders Sports Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1536/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 255(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Kallianji Chaturbhuj and Vijay Cantol Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (E)-1(4), Mumbai

ITA 1398/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Vasant, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, D.R

Section 12ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 271(1)

Trust. 3. Your appellant prays that the levy of penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act on your appellant for furnishing inaccurate particulars be deleted” 2. Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are : the assessee being a charitable trust having

Ruchit Dineshbhai Doshi, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 2(2)(1), Surat

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 216/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Ruchit Dineshbhai Doshi, I.T.O., C-10, 5/6, Somakanji Estate-2, Opp- Ward-2(2)(1), Vs. Sanidev Mandir, Magdalla Bo, Surat. Surat-395007 (Gujarat) Pan No. Afxpd 4008 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

reassessment. Mere not acceptance of reply, cannot be a ground to levy of penalty. The assessee neither concealed any particular of income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The Assessing Officer has not specified the specific charge in the show cause notice. The ld. AR of the assessee further ... show cause notice dated 27/11/2019 and 03/12/2019. In both the notices, the Assessing Officer mentioned “you have concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income”. However, while passing the penalty order dated 11/01/2022, the penalty was levied but no specific charge was referred by the Assessing

Zarina Zikar Virani, Mumbai vs. ITO-20(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1394/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Kumar KaleFor Respondent: Shri Suresh D. Gaikwad (Sr. AR)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

whether the notice (proposing penalty) was issued against the assessee for (i) Concealing the particulars of assessee’s income (ii) or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. Since we note that both the faults have been spelled out without striking down the in-applicable faults on which assessee

Arun Duggal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 439/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income’ but the order of the penalty has been passed for ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’. Therefore, submitted that the order of the penalty is deserves to be quashed. 4. The Ld. DR relying on the order ... issued against the assessee u/s 274 of the Act wherein it has mentioned as under: “have concealed the particulars of your income or……….furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.” Further, it is observed that the penalty order has been passed levying penalty Rs.4

Unitech Reality Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-27(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2911/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.2911/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 M/S. Unitech Realty Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Basement , 6, Circle - 27(1), Community Centre, Saket New Delhi Delhi-110017 New Delhi Pan : Aaacr4290E (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

have specific attribution of the allegation as to if the notices are issued was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. SSA’s Emerald

DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Ajmer vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 210/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 210/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer cuke Vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma F-108, Industrial Area, Makhupura Parbatpura, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ASWPS 3791 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. No. 04/JP/2023 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 210/JP/2023) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 Yashwant Kumar Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. James Kurian (CIT) &

Section 139(1)Section 271ASection 274

farce. Notice issued to the assessee reproduced (supra), does not show whether penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for having undisclosed income within the meaning of Section 271AAB of the Act. Notice in our opinion was vague. Hon’ble Karnataka

Neel Controls, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1332/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Parag Modi, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Ld

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on dated 20.03.2014 and ultimately vide penalty order dated 23.03.2018 held that the Assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income by debiting bogus purchases in his Profit & Loss A/c. This is clear case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The AO consequently ... initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act not only for concealment of income but also for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and accordingly issued the notice dated 26-03-2015 under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income

Sheetal Mehra, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-40(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 907/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediasheetal Mehra Vs. Ito Qp-40, 2Nd Floor, Ward – 40(1) Pitampura, New Delhi-34 New Delhi Pan No. Ajapm 1364 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Snehil, Adv. Revenue By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.07.2023

Section 271(1)(c)

perusal of the penalty order passed by AO, it was noticed that the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty on a different premise i.e. furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The CIT(A) in the first appeal confirmed the action of the AO on the grounds of ‘concealment of particulars of income ... horse the penalty imposed by AO alleging furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. In this factual background, it is apparent that the basis and foundation for imposition of penalty has been altered by AO himself while imposing the penalty in departure to satisfaction formed in the course of assessment proceedings