← All Phrases

“furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”

PenaltySection 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)1,616 judgments

The decision most relied on for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

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 of income

Shri Balbir Singh Verma, Shimla vs. Pr.CIT, Shimla

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 314/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

evidence to prove that the loan was used for business purposes. Further, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3.4 Regarding Motor Car Expenses the Ld. AO observed that the assessee had claimed expenses related to motor vehicles. These included depreciation, maintenance

Madhu Silica Pvt. Ltd., Bhavnagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar

In the result, appeal being ITA No

ITA 702/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 701 & 702/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 32A

assessee did not file any reply and therefore the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 5,46,79,979/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income . 4. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the appeal filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Madhu Silica Pvt. Ltd., Bhavnagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar

In the result, appeal being ITA No

ITA 701/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 701 & 702/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 32A

assessee did not file any reply and therefore the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 5,46,79,979/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income . 4. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the appeal filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Mrs. Nayana D. Atekar, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-29(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1950/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(3)Section 147

cause notice under which limb of Sec 271(1), AO proposes to levy penalty le for concealing particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of Income, as AO has not cancelled inappropriate words from printed notice us 204 ws 21(1). 4. On facts and circumstances of the case

Kamini Krishna Kotak, Mumbai vs. Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

The appeals are allowed while Ground No

ITA 6640/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2025AY 2012-2013
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

passing Assessment Order, dated 27/09/2021, under Section 143(3) read with Section 254 of the Act, the penalty proceedings were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The relevant extract of the aforesaid assessment order reads as under: "9. As the assessee had not disclosed income correctly in the return ... income, as discussed above, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961 is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of income.” (emphasis supplied) Whereas on perusal of the Penalty Order, we find that the Assessing Officer had levied penalty for concealment

Kamini Krishna Kotak, Mumbai vs. Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

The appeals are allowed while Ground No

ITA 6610/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Y. P. Trivedi, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Order, dated 27/09/2021, under Section 143(3) read with Section 254 of the Act, the penalty proceedings were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The relevant extract of the aforesaid assessment order reads as under: “9. As the assessee had not disclosed income correctly in the return of income ... discussed above, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961 is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of income.” (emphasis supplied) Whereas on perusal of the Penalty Order, we find that the Assessing Officer had levied penalty for concealment of particulars

Kamini Krishna Kotak, Mumbai vs. Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

The appeals are allowed while Ground No

ITA 6602/MUM/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2025AY 2010-2011
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

passing Assessment Order, dated 27/09/2021, under Section 143(3) read with Section 254 of the Act, the penalty proceedings were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The relevant extract of the aforesaid assessment order reads as under: "9. As the assessee had not disclosed income correctly in the return ... income, as discussed above, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961 is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of income.” (emphasis supplied) Whereas on perusal of the Penalty Order, we find that the Assessing Officer had levied penalty for concealment

Bhavna Jain, Hansi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hisar

ITA 1033/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

conclude that each and every quantum addition would not ipso facto involve the impugned section 271(1)(c) penalty of concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The impugned penalty forming subject matter of adjudication in both these assessment years are hereby deleted. 5. These assessee’s twin appeals

Bhavna Jain, Hansi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Hisar

ITA 1032/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

conclude that each and every quantum addition would not ipso facto involve the impugned section 271(1)(c) penalty of concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The impugned penalty forming subject matter of adjudication in both these assessment years are hereby deleted. 5. These assessee’s twin appeals

Niranjanbhai D. Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 470/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Jimit Shah, AR
Section 10(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44ASection 69

made under section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. Penalty proceedings were also initiated under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. ITA No.449,450, 470 and 471/Ahd/2024 3 3. The AO further recorded that the assessee had not maintained books of account, despite the magnitude

Niranjanbhai D. Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 450/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Jimit Shah, AR
Section 10(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44ASection 69

made under section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. Penalty proceedings were also initiated under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. ITA No.449,450, 470 and 471/Ahd/2024 3 3. The AO further recorded that the assessee had not maintained books of account, despite the magnitude

Niranjanbhai D. Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 449/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Jimit Shah, AR
Section 10(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44ASection 69

made under section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. Penalty proceedings were also initiated under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. ITA No.449,450, 470 and 471/Ahd/2024 3 3. The AO further recorded that the assessee had not maintained books of account, despite the magnitude

Thimmaiya Gopaludu, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hosur

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

ITA 2774/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 148Section 153(2)Section 69A

notice u/s. 274 ITA Nos.2773 & 2774/Chny/2024 6-5 of the Act whether the penalty was initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. On merits, the Ld. AR has submitted that the penalty should be restricted to the amount of income sustained by the Tribunal

Thimmaiya Gopaludu, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Ward 1, Hosur

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

ITA 2773/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2773 & 2774/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2012-13

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 148Section 153(2)Section 69A

notice u/s. 274 ITA Nos.2773 & 2774/Chny/2024 :- 6 -: of the Act whether the penalty was initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. On merits, the Ld. AR has submitted that the penalty should be restricted to the amount of income sustained by the Tribunal

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(6), Surat vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Surat

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 106/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

Rs.1,21,032/- u/s 69C of the Act. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The AO has disallowed 25% of total non- genuine purchases of Rs.4,84,128/- from the concerns of Rajendra Jain Group, who were ... case of revenue ITA No.106/SRT/2025/AY.2009-10 Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya right from the beginning is that the assessee has shown bogus purchases and thus, furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The stand of revenue is upheld by the ITAT in restricting the addition to the extent of 6%. Therefore, the penalty

Monish Ranjan Dasgupta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 61(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 2447/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

Ranjan Dasgupta. Chacko v. CIT [1993] 203 ITR 885 has held that a penalty for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income can be imposed only when the assessing authority is satisfied that there has been such concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. A penalty

Balvir Mohan Mistry, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Navsari

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8/SRT/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

without recording his satisfaction and determining a specific charge as to whether the assessee had defaulted either in furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or in concealment of income while initiating the penalty proceedings. 3. It is therefore prayed that the penalty levied by the assessing officer may please be deleted

Balvir Mohan Mistry, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Navsari

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7/SRT/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

without recording his satisfaction and determining a specific charge as to whether the assessee had defaulted either in furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or in concealment of income while initiating the penalty proceedings. 3. It is therefore prayed that the penalty levied by the assessing officer may please be deleted

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Surat, Anavil Business Centre vs. Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Diwali Baug Athwalines

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 115/SRT/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.107 To 109/Srt/2025 Assessment Years:(2010-11 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Ward – 1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Rander Road, Surat Near Navyug College, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akvps5306G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Srt/2025 Assessment Year:(2007-08) The Ito, Vs. Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Ward – 1(3)(1), 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Surat Athwalines, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.1/Srt/2025 [Arising In Ita No.115/Srt/2025] Assessment Year:(2007-08) Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Vs. The Ito, 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Ward – 1(3)(1), Athwalines, Surat - 395001 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mitul R. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 271(1)(c)

Rs.1,16,996/- us 69C of the Act. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The AO has disallowed 25% of total non- genuine purchases of Rs.4,67,985/- from the concerns of Rajendra Jain Group, who were ... submitted that the case of revenue right from the beginning is that the assessee has shown bogus purchases and thus, furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The stand of revenue is upheld by the ITAT in restricting the addition to the extent of 6%. Therefore, the penalty

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(6), Surat vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Surat

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 109/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.107 To 109/Srt/2025 Assessment Years:(2010-11 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Ward – 1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Rander Road, Surat Near Navyug College, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akvps5306G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Srt/2025 Assessment Year:(2007-08) The Ito, Vs. Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Ward – 1(3)(1), 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Surat Athwalines, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.1/Srt/2025 [Arising In Ita No.115/Srt/2025] Assessment Year:(2007-08) Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Vs. The Ito, 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Ward – 1(3)(1), Athwalines, Surat - 395001 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mitul R. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 271(1)(c)

Rs.1,16,996/- us 69C of the Act. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The AO has disallowed 25% of total non- genuine purchases of Rs.4,67,985/- from the concerns of Rajendra Jain Group, who were ... submitted that the case of revenue right from the beginning is that the assessee has shown bogus purchases and thus, furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The stand of revenue is upheld by the ITAT in restricting the addition to the extent of 6%. Therefore, the penalty