“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

S.Gopi, Dharmapuri vs. ACIT Central Circle, Salem

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

ITA 468/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 468/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri. S. Gopi, Acit, Prop: S.S. Jewellery, V. Central Circle, 38/118, Duraisamy Naidu Street, Salem. Dharmapuri – 636 701. [Pan:Acdpg-9303-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 132ASection 153ASection 271ASection 69A

there is a provision for levy of penalty for two situations i.e., concealment of particulars of income and also furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, whereas, u/s. 271AAB of the Act, in a case where search has been initiated u/s. 132 of the Act on or after 01.07.2012, the assessee shall

Raju Tirathdas Ramchandani, Mum vs. Income Tax Officer-22(3)(1), Mum

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2252/MUM/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhraju Tirathdas Vs. Income Tax Officer - Ramchandani, 603, 22(3)(1), Piramal Premodyan Co-Op Chamber, Lal Baugh Housing Society, 12Th Parel, Road, Ram Krishna Maharashtra - 400012 Mission, Khar (W) Mumbai – 400 052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aebpr3611P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shashi Bekal Respondent By : Mahita Nair Date Of Hearing 31.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Am: The Solitary Ground Of Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Nfac In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.4,49,922/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 2. Fact In Brief Is That Assessment U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Act Was Finalized On 04.03.2013. During The Course Assessment A.O Noticed That Assessee Has Made Total Investment Of Rs.14,00,000/- During The Year In All Templaton India Treasury Management Account Regular Plan – Weekly Dividend Plan Scheme. The A.O Stated That During The Course Of

For Appellant: Shashi BekalFor Respondent: Mahita Nair

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

added back to the total income of the assessee. The A.O has also initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Thereafter, vide penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 11.03.2016 the A.O stated that neither assessee attended during

Ashok Jasraj Jain, HUF, Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5609/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ashok Jasraj Jain, Huf, Acit-19(1), 45/12, Rajkotwala Bldg., 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir Bldg., 1St Carpenter Street, C.P. Tank, Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai-400 007. Pan No. Aaahj 0191 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Mehul Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Sinha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Sinha, DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 148

unexplained expenditure. Penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) are unexplained expenditure. Penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) are separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income leading to evasion of tax. leading to evasion

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. JCIT, Central Range-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

ITA 6124/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta, AR

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 50Section 68Section 69C

proceedings is initiated u/s 271(1)(c) tax Act. Penalty proceedings is initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” tax Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” tax Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 13.2 The para ... assessee. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income assessee. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” ” 13.3. The para No. 8 of the assessment order, 13.3. The para

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Range-8 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

ITA 6123/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta, AR

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 50Section 68Section 69C

Magnaram Choudhary, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 17(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7077/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7077/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Shri Magnaram Choudhary बिधम/ Ito-17(2)(3) Flat No. 304, Building No. Matru Mandir, Mumbai. Vs. B-2/D, Nav Maharashtra Nagar Co-Op Society, M. P. Mill Compound, Tardeo, Mumbai-400034. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ainpc0320L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee An Individual Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28 Mumbai Dated 03.05.2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)

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

penalty did not specify the exact fault on which the penalty is proposed to be levied i.e. whether the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income or have concealed the income. 4. In respect of the aforesaid ground of appeal, first of all we have to peruse the show cause ... faults specified in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is given i.e. “the assessee have concealed the particulars of his income” or “furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income” is found to have been given therein, meaning the AO has put to notice the assessee on both the faults without

Shirish M Dalvi, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cir 29(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

ITA 4640/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit Circle-23(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala 3Rd Floor, C-10, Pratyaksha Vs. Complex, Sahajanand Kar Bhavan, Bandra East, Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Circle-23(3), Shirish M. Dalvi, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C-10 D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Vs. Bldg., Pratyakshakar Complex, Sahajanand Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit-29(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C- Vs. Complex, Sahajanand 10, Pratyaksha Kar Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H

deductions by the assessee u/s 80IB(10) of Rs.3,17,76,302 stands denied. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income.” 26. On further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) in the year under consideration has disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction

DCIT Cir 23(3), Mumbai vs. Shirish M Dalvi, Mumbai

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

ITA 4317/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Kismet Exports & Investments Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 12(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesseeITA No

ITA 7320/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 250(6)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40Section 57

I.T.Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 5.1 He further argued that the assessee company has accumulated profit from earlier year i.e. F.Y. 2006-07 as on 31.03.2007 an amount of Rs.52

Phoenix International Freight Services P. Ltd( Now Known As As C.H. Robinson International (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3206/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shripavankumargadale,Judicialmember & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Phoenix Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of International Freight Income Tax, Range-2(1) Services Pvt. Ltd. (Now Mumbai-400050 Known As C.H. Robinson International (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Excom House 7, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400072 Pan No.Aabce0443R Appellant Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

being 100 percent of tax sought to be evaded, on the alleged ground that, the Appellant had consciously and deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. 2. The Appellant prays that the action of the lower authorities be deleted. Ground No. III: General The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend ... Phoenix International Freight Services Pvt Ltd. (SC)has held that the assessee is liable to pay penalty u/s.271(l) (c) if he has furnished inaccurate particulars of income in his Income Tax Return. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that everything would depend upon the return filed because that

Mehul Jadavji Shah, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1380/MUM/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.191/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1380/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Mehul Jadavji Shah बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) 1301, 13Th Floor, Peninsula Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Vs. Business Park, Tower-B Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Senapati Bapat Marg, Road, Mumbai-400020. Lower Parel (W), Mumbai- 400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajps1654H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sukhsagar Syal Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

from other sources under section 56(vii) of the Act. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 9. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the action of the AO on the same ... dated 04.12.2017 is found placed. From a perusal of the same, we note that both the faults/charges i.e. have “concealment of income” or “furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income” Meaning the assessee was in the dark as to what kind of fault he has committed against which the AO proposed

De Dietrich Process Systems India P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - 19(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2021/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2021 & 2022/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit-19(3)(1), Mumbai De Dietrich Process Systems Aayakar Bhavan, India Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai-400 020 R. No. 548/549, Road No. 16, Vs. Ttc Indl. Area, Midc Rabale, Navi Mumbai-400 701 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccd8576D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sanjay R. Parikh, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 13.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 10.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 24.12.2019, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-16, Mumbai In Relation To The Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Parikh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 40aSection 43B

this addition, penalty has been levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. Ld. CIT(A) too has confirmed the penalties after following the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile

Mehul Jadavji Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 7 (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 191/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

DCIT Cen Cir 8(4), Mumbai vs. Savita Oil Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed and the assessee Cross Objection is allowed

ITA 2323/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pavankumargadale,Judicialmember & Shri Amarjit Singhdeputy Commissioner Vs. M/S. Savita Oil Of Income Tax-Cc-8(4) Technologies Ltd. 6Th Floor, Room No. 66-67, 658, Aayakarbhavan, Narimanbhawan, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 020 Mumbai- 400 021 Pan No.Aaacs7934A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24Section 271Section 271(1)Section 275Section 80I

Assessing officer is defective, as it does not mention whether the penalty is levied for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Ld. AR has filed the submissions and demonstrated the copy of Notice. Whereas, the Ld.DR contentions are that the CIT(A) has erred

Apco Yarn (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward- 4 (1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 7205/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 68

assessee in the assessment order goes to prove that AO has not applied his mind to work out if the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed its income so as to initiate the penal 4 M/s. Apco Yarn (India) Pvt. Ltd. provisions. AO is required to record ... valid satisfaction if the assessee has concealed its income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Moreover, in the instant case undisputedly entire addition has been made in this case on adhoc basis by the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) being the 20% disallowance of sundry creditors

Reinforce Buildcon Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 3(3), Thane

In the result, Ground No.2 raised by assessee is fully allowed

ITA 2385/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalreinforce Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 303/B, Darul Aman Co-Op.Hsg. Society Ltd. Kausar Baug, Amrutnagar, Mumbra, Thane-400612. Pan: Aafcr6762C ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-3(3), Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Road No.16Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane-400064. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. D.M. Shah, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Ashish Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. D.M. Shah, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

returned of income and why penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should not be initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars on the above both issues. The assessee was also informed that this was the last and final opportunity and in case of non compliance

Income Tax Officer Ward -3(1), Mumbai vs. Bhadresh Jayantilal Shah, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1666/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1666/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito, Ward-3(1), Kalyan बिधम/ Bhadresh Jayantilal Shah 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, B-106 Shiv Sambhav Vs. Murbad Road, Kalyan (W), Chsl, Veer Savarkar 421301. Road, Dombivli (E), Thane-421201. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aeeps2956R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/ Nfac, Delhi Dated 11.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2010-11 Deleting The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Facts Of The Case Is That The Ao In The Quantum Assessment Dated 30.12.2014 Had Added Rs.1,46,635/- Being 100% Of The Alleged Bogus Purchases. On Appeal, The Ld. Cit(A)-1 By Order Dated 25.06.2018 Reduced The Same To The Extent Of 25% Of The Alleged Bogus Purchases. Resultantly, The Addition Was Restricted To Rs.36,659/-. On Further Appeal By Revenue, The Tribunal Upheld The Action Of The Cit(A) (Ita. No 5079 & 5080/Mum/2018) & Thus The Revenue Appeal Was Dismissed.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)

Section 271(1)(c)

that the law is trite that the additions made on estimated basis cannot be subjected to penalty for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and thus, various Hon'ble Courts and Tribunals have consistently held the same view while deleting the penalty imposed under section ... pertains to estimated rate of profit applied on the turnover of the assessee which in our view does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. In our view, the CIT (A) has taken right decision in deleting the penalty which is upheld." 3 A.Y. 2010-11 Bhadresh Jayantilal Shah

ACIT Cent Cir 2(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Amish A Modi, Mumbai

ITA 1570/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor, D.R

Section 10(38)Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 68

same is taxed as undisclosed income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) Of the Act are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 7. From the above it is apparent that no incriminating material was found with regard to addition made. Furthermore, from where addition

Amish Anantrai Modi, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 1468/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor, D.R

Section 10(38)Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 68

Asstt. CIT, Central Cir-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Amish A Modi, Mumbai

ITA 1357/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor, D.R

Section 10(38)Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 68