“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

Suvino Televideo, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the above terms

ITA 2099/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32(2)Section 72Section 72(1)Section 72(2)

Unlimited period 2012-13 483365 137062 2020-21 Unlimited period Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income is separately being initiated. 5. Subject to the above, the total income of the assessee is computed as under: Rs. Rs. Income from ... Charge interest as per law, issue demand notice /R.O. accordingly. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income is separately being initiated." 6. The ld. CIT(A) has noted down that the appellant has filed online written

Nirmaladevi Shreegopal Kanodia, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1781/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(40)Section 69A

assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c)of the Income tax Act are being initiated separately for concealment of income and also furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (Addition U/s. 69A: Rs. 84,00,669/-) 4. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT (A). 5. The findings

Nirmaladevi Shreegopal Kanodia, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1780/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(40)Section 69A

Nirmaladevi Shreegopal Kanodia, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Vejalpur, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1779/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(40)Section 69A

Akm Resorts, Mohali vs. ACIT Circle 5(1), Chandigarh

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CA &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

rejection of books and application of net profit rate. 2.2 Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (l)(c) for concealment of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income were also initiated in respect of above mentioned addition and notice u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income ... inaccurate particulars of income. 2.7 Basis above premises, the ld. AO concluded that assessee is liable to penal action on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and default has been committed by the assessee within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and has quantified concealment

National Commodities Management Services Limited (Formerly Known As National Collateral Management Services Limited), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Rang -7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3225/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis, And Shri Jay DharodFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT(DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35A

case and in law, the learned lower authorities erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income without appreciating the fact that said penalty cannot be imposed when additions/disallowances were made under normal provisions of the Act and ultimate tax liability

Dy.CIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai, Incometax Department vs. National Commodities Management Services Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2635/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis, And Shri Jay DharodFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT(DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35A

National Commodities Management Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1340/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis, And Shri Jay DharodFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT(DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35A

Pjl Clothing India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8 2 1, Mumbai

In the result,the appeal of the In the result,the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5916/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarpjl Clothing India Pvt. V/S. Nfac/Dcit 8 2 1 Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. बनाम 505, 506 Dalamal Road, Churchgate, Chambers, New Marine Mumbai-400020 Lines, Vitthaldasthackersey Marg, Churchgate, Maharashtra-400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacp2782R .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

For Appellant: Mr. Satish ModiFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani,Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

deduction claimed in the original ITR. claimed in the original ITR.So it was held that assessee had committed d committed default of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income knowingly and without any of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income knowingly and without any of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income knowingly and without

The Kunbi Sahakari Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3463/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanthe Kunbi Sahkari Bank Ltd. Nfac Delhi /Cit (A)-3, Abhilasha Shramik Co-Op. Hsg. Mumbai Society Ltd., Ground Floor, Vs. Kingstone Tower, G. D. Ambedkar Marg, Kalachowki, Mumbai – 400 033 Pan: Aaaat0034A (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

matter suo moto to the notice of the AO during the assessment proceedings, the AO was justified in levying penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income u/s 271(1)(c). This ground is dismissed. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee preferred the appeal before us on the following ... Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in sustaining the penalty under Section 271 (1) (c)of Rs.1823051/-/- being in the nature furnishing inaccurate particular of income pertaining to carry forward losses without understanding the facts & circumstances of the case & the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong & contrary

Blm Hospitals Private Limited, Farrukhabad vs. DCIT Circle 4(2)(1), Farrukhabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/AGR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra05 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

excess brought forward MAT credit has to be analyzed. 9.3. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is levied for concealing or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In the case before us the issue relates to levy of penalty on account of excess brought forward MAT credit. Whether the term "income ... evident from section 271(1)(c) itself which quantifies the amount of penalty, to the tax sought to be evaded by concealing / furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Taxes paid or payable are thus not income for the purposes of Section 271(1)(c). Particulars of MAT credit furnished

Sharda Devi, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1213/JPR/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Feb 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalsharda Devi, 421, Lohia Padi, Alwar- 301001. Pan No.:Adkpd7161J ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward- 1(4), Alwar. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kranti Mehta, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT, DR

Section 115WSection 142Section 143(3)Section 143oSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142, or (c) has concealed the particulars ofhis income or furnished inaccurate particulars ofsuch income, or (d) has concealed the particulars of the fringe benefits or furnished inaccurate particulars of such fringe benefits, he may direct that such person ... more than the sale consideration admitted and mentioned in the sale agreement. Thus it does not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is also not the case of the revenue that the assessee has failed to furnish the relevant record as called

Subodh Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1264/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234B

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, rescind from or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time

Falguni S. Mehta, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1603/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra P. Sinha

For Respondent: Shri S K Agal, Sr. DR

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

explain away its conduct. The question is whether the assessee has offered any explanation for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Explanation to section 271(1)(c) raises a presumption of concealment when a difference is noticed by the AO, between reported and assessed income ... proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, there is no clarity whether penalty proceedings have been initiated for “concealment of income" or furnishing “inaccurate particulars of income" and for this reason as well as, the penalty order is liable to be set-aside. 7. In response, the Ld. DR placed

Fantacy Creations, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 25, Kolkata

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

ITA 1449/KOL/2024[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2025AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

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

Addition of Rs. 4,81,421/- on account of unexplained money. Penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of income as well as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c ) of the act was passed on 30.06.2017 for concealment of particulars of income as well as furnishing ... specific charge against the assessee namely as to whether the assessee was guilty of having concealed particulars of income or having furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The AO has not struck out the irrelevant portion in the show cause notice. Therefore, the show cause notice does not specify the charge

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)-3(4), Mumbai vs. Ambuja Cements Limited, Mumbai

ITA 312/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: the Assessing Officer to set out his defence against levy of penalty?." 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee, a public Limited company engaged, inter alia, in manufactured and sale of cement, filed original return of income for the Assessment Year 2011–2012 on 30/11/2011. Thereafter, the Assessee filed a revised return of income on 27/11/2012, which was selected for regular scrutiny.

For Appellant: Shri Vartik ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Income Tax Act, 1961 on technical ground without Assessment Year 2011-2012 considering that in the assessment order penalty was initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and in the penalty order also the penalty was imposed for the same default. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances ... addition of INR.3.98 Crores by disallowing the deduction claimed in respect of Provisions for Mines Reclamation Expenses and initiated penalty proceeding for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. During the penalty proceedings, the Assessee was asked to show cause

Khilan N. Patel (HUF), Surat vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(3), Surat

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

ITA 429/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.429/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Khilan N. Patel (Huf), Vs. The Dcit, 6/2201, Nagarsheri, Mahidharpura, Circle – 2(3), Surat – 395003 (Gujarat) Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aakhk6987L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Akshay M. Modi, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2025

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

later invested in share transactions. Hence, Rs.41,00,000/- was added u/s 68 and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee had also disclosed short-term capital gain (STCG) of Rs.32,79,845/-. As the assessee had entered into large volume ... actual delivery, the amount shown as “capital gain” was treated as “business income”. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed this appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had issued six notices

The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Dharamshala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Palampur

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

ITA 805/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in levying a penalty of Rs. 66,38,400/- for alleged concealment of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position in as much as no such penalty was exigible ... separately, the penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by issuing a notice dt. 05/03/2014 under section 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act. 5. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before

The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Dharamshala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Palampur

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

ITA 804/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

Escee Traders Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Satkriti Properties Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1752/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1752/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Escee Traders Pvt. Ltd (Formerly Known As Satkriti Properties Pvt. Ltd.) ….....Appellant 12Th Floor, Unit 12B, Unimark Asian, 52/1, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan: Aancs7043M] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata……….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri R. C. Jhawer, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rama Choudhary, Jcit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13 Against The Order Dated 21.06.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 26.03.2022. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.19,81,896/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act Based On Information Received Regarding Bogus Ltcg On Sale Of Shares Of Banas Finance Ltd. It Was Alleged That The Assessee Purchased 55,000 Shares For Rs.30,11,800/- & Sold Them For Rs.10,05,950/- Booking A Loss Of Rs.20,05,850/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, It Was Concluded

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

also mentioned in his order that penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and the Assessing Officer thereafter passed a penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by levying penalty of Rs.6,19,809/- upon the assessee ... evidence on record to prove its grounds of appeal that the finding of the AO was not correct. Hence, the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation thereto. Hence, the penalty levied by the AO is confirmed