“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

Amish Anantrai Modi, Mumbai vs. Dy Cti-CC-2(1), Mumbai

ITA 1312/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

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. Dy Cti-CC-2(1), Mumbai

ITA 1311/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

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

Steller Films Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT- Circle 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed Pronounced in the open court today on the 15th of 21

ITA 6089/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)

total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 9. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without any success. Learned CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance and justified ... back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty Proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 are separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 16. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal but without any success. Learned CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance on the basis

J V Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-29(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3992/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

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

Section 250Section 68

disallowance under the head computes at Rs.25,00,000/- Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act is separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income for year under reference.” 6. In appeal, learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 15/03/2019, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee

Scorditte Stainless India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 5(3) (1), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 to 3 raised by the Appellant are allowed

ITA 2002/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

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

Income filed u/s 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore it is prove that the assessee has concealed particulars of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, it is evident that the assessee has conceal income to evade payment of taxes which attract penalty proceeding

Vijay Grihnirman P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 15 & 16, Mumbai

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

ITA 3279/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Us.

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

which he is proposing to initiate penalty proceedings. However, in the Assessment Order, Assessing Officer records that the penalty proceedings are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6. An identical situation has been considered by the Coordinate Bench in Meherjee Cassinath Holdings v. ACIT in ITA.No. 2555/Mum/2012 dated ... course of any proceedings under the Act, he is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. In other words, what Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act postulates is that the penalty can be levied on the existence

Rare Enterprises, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai 4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 653/MUM/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri S. C. TiwariFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

Court (for admission) and the same is pending before the Hon’ble High Court. We note that the AO had initiated penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, it is noted from perusal of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act that AO had disallowed Rs.3

Arm Embedded Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 235/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: 2.1 Rejecting the value of international transaction of provision of SWD and proFor Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92D

erred in serving notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiating penalty proceedings for concealment of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. That the Appellant craves leave to add to and/or to alter, amend, rescind, modify the grounds herein below or produce further documents

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Lyka Labs Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2934/MUM/2019[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 10(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Lyka Labs Ltd., 5Th Floor, Room No. Ground Floor, Spencer 509, Aayakar Bhavan, Bldg, 30, Forjett Street. Churchgate, Grant Road(West), Mumbai -400036. Mumbai -400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl0820G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt.Shailja Rai. Cit Dr Respondent By : Shri .Jayesh Dadia. Ar Date Of Hearing 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -17, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt.Shailja Rai. CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri .Jayesh Dadia. AR

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 55(2)

knowhow and intangible assets. But the Lyka Labs Ltd., Mumbai. A.O was not satisfied with the explanations and observed that the asseessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and levied a penalty of Rs.9,12,47,500/- and passed the order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated ... course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person........... (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, or... he may direct that such person shall pay by Way of penalty, (Hi) in the cases referred to in clause

Mega Custodial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 7(2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1768/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blemega Custodial Services Limited V. Acit – Circle – 7(2)(1) 205, Level-2, Ceejay House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road F-Block, Shiv Sagar Estate Mumbai - 400020 Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai - 400018 Pan: Aaacm3508J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Navneet ChoudharyFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkarni

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act submitted that notice was issued stating that assessee has concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. In other words, the notice was issued for both the limbs without striking off the irreverent 4 Mega Custodial Services Limited limb ... Assessing Officer has not specified any limb for which the notices were issued i.e., either for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. Assessing Officer did not strike off irrelevant limb in the notices specifying the charge for which notices were issued

DCIT Cent -Cir.1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sunny Vista Realtors Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the learned AO is allowed

ITA 1711/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Sunny Vista Realtors Pvt. Tax, Ltd. Central Circle-1(2), 511, Dalamal Towers, 211, 906, 9Th Floor, Pratishta Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg. (Annexe), Mumbai-400 021 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aakcs1269E Assessee By : Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, Nihar Mehta & Jayesh B. Kapani, Cas’ Revenue By : Dr. Pallavi Darade, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal BhutaFor Respondent: Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR

Section 143(3)

Sunny Nista Realtors P Ltd.; A.Y. 18-19 11.5 Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act 1961 are also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." 9.3 During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee contended that this project was auctioned by the Panjab National Bank

Lotus Labs P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Banglore (Present Incharge Mumbai)

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1820/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 37

attracts penal provisions, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the income-tax: Act, 1961 is initiated separately for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) but without any success. Learned CIT(A) also confirmed

ACIT Circle-16(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Asianet News Networks Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 6277/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Section 115JSection 271Section 271(1)(c)

Under clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Act, penalty for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is determined based on the "amount of tax sought to be evaded" which has been defined inter-alia, as the difference between

ACIT Circle-16 (1), Mumbai vs. M/S Asianet News Network Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 6062/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

proceedings have been initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee AO proceeded to levy penalty of Rs.8654135/- at the rate ... under section 115JB of the Act. It is also not in dispute that qua addition of Rs.1.75 crore AO initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and for addition of Rs.4.8 crores penalty proceedings have been initiated for concealing particulars of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars

Mrs Chhaya Himmat Jagda, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-32(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 968/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 968/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ito Ward 32(1)(2) Mrs. Chhaya Himmat C-11, Pratyakshkar Jagda 602-Manas Moti Bhavan, Bandra Kurla बनाम/ Building No. 1 (6Th Floor), Complex, Bandra(East), Mumbai-400 051 Devidas Lane, Near Vs. Lawrence School, Borivali (West), Mumbai-400 092 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaepj7836R (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri M. Subramanian, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Praveen Shekhar, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 04.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 21.04.2022, Passed By National Faceless

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Shekhar

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

received from Kolkata investigation directorate. The penalty has been levied by the AO holding it to be concealment of income as well as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Ld. CIT(A) has too confirmed the penalty. 5. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that here in this ... that AO though in his assessment order made addition of Rs. 17,17,275/- and stated that penalty proceedings is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, while issuing notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271, he has not specified the charge under which limb, he intends to impose

Dlh Kamla Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC- 3(4), Mumbai

ITA 1373/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1373 & 1374/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit Cen. Cir. -3(4), Dlh Kamla Developers 19Th Floor, Air India Ground Floor, Shanti बनाम/ Vimal, P. M. Road, Vile Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Parle East, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 057 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aahfd0790K (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Shankar, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 22.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 22.08.2022 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 24.12.2018, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-51, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3)/153A For Ay 2013-14 & Section 143(3) For Ay 2014-15. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Ld. DR

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is hereby initiated for 9 I.T.A. No. 1373 & 1374/Mum/2019 DLH Kamla Developers furnishing inaccurate particulars of income thereby leading to concealment of income. 10. Further it is stated that the assessee must have incurred some commission expense on the said accommodation ... hereby disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated/for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of income. 10 I.T.A. No. 1373 & 1374/Mum/2019 DLH Kamla Developers 9. Ld. CIT(A) has noted in para

Nitin Parkash, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 3, Thane

ITA 1540/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 817/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं. 1540/मुं/2018 ("न.व. 2011-12) Mr. Nitin Parkash , 221/222, Swasstik Plaza, Pokhran Road No.2, Subhash Nagar, Thane (W) – 400 601 Pan: Aaspp-1411-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 3, Thane. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Akash Kumar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Tharian Oommen& Shri B.K.Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 27/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.817/Mum/2015 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Thane [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 01/01/2015 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. This Appeal Is In The Second Round Before The Tribunal. Earlier This Appeal Of The Assessee Was Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 19/03/2018. Thereafter, The Assessee Filed Miscellaneous Application, Vide Ma No.271/Mum/2018 Seeking

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajiv Khandelwal and Akash KumarFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen& Shri B.K.Bagchi

Section 2(14)Section 48

notice. The notice mentions both the limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act i.e. “concealed the particulars of income” and/or “furnished inaccurate particulars”. The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT(Supra) has held that non-striking of irrelevant matter ... assessment order the Assessing Officer has recorded satisfaction for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the charge of ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’. However, while levying penalty vide order dated 31/03/2016, the Assessing Officer has time and again mentioned both the limbs/charge of section

Nitin Parkash, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 3, Thane

ITA 817/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajiv Khandelwal and Akash KumarFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen& Shri B.K.Bagchi

Section 2(14)Section 48

Mr. Real Team System Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 15 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1389/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1389/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ito 15(3)(1) M/S Real Team Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Systems Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 1101, Bldg. No. 6, Road, Churchgate, Seawood Estates, Nri Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Complex, Navi Mumbai- 400 706 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcr0073Q (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 17.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 17.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 27.12.2018, Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Mumbai In Relation To Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2014-15. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld

Section 271(1)(c)

depreciation. First of all, we have to see whether there was any inadvertent mistake or there was deliberate concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Here in this case, assessee has stated that there was an error in noting, the rate of depreciation from the Schedule and there ... simply 4 I.T.A. No. 1389/Mum/2019 M/s Real Team Systems Pvt. Ltd. accepted the explanation and has yet imposed penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In such scenario, the judgment and principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6122/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit Central Circle-8(3), 72-7, Kalpatatru Residency 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower B, Sion Koliwada Road, Vs. M.K. Road, Sion, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400022. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

Income Tax Ac proceeding is initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6. As per ITS, the assessee received labour charges of Rs. 3,00,660/ 6. As per ITS, the assessee received labour charges ... Income T proceeding is initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for ax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 7.1 Regarding the ground No. the ground No. 7 also though the Assessing Officer Assessing Officer has not referred