“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

DCIT - 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Housing Development Finance Corporartion Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2862/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advoca

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Muthurathinam, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Tiruppur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2656/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2656/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-2014) Muthurathinam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 27/29, Kumarappapuram, Ward 1(2) 1St Street, Rayapuram Extension, Tirupur. Tirupur 641 601. [Pan: Avypm 0862D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, (Erode) Advocate By Virtual. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 31.12.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Penalty Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 21.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issue Sought To Be Urged By The Assessee In This Appeal Is Whether The Cit(A) Was Justified In Upholding The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act"] By Ignoring The Fact That The Assessing Officer (‘Ao’ In Short) In Assessment Order Dated 28.09.2021 Has Satisfied That Penalty Proceeding Is Being Initiated Separately For “Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Such Income” Where As Penalty Order U/S 271(1)(C) Dated 04.01.2022 Levied Penalty For “Concealment Of Income”, Although In The Notice Under Section 274 Read With Section 271(1) (C), The Ao Has Marked The Specified Limb As “That You Have Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Such Income”.

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, (Erode) Advocate by virtualFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, IRS, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

assessment order also it was specified that "penalty proceedings under sec. 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act 1961 are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." Hence, there is no ambiguity about the limb for which the penalty proceedings are initiated. Therefore, I do not find any vagueness ... appellant in this ground of appeals. 8.1 The appellant contended in his response dated 08.10.2022 that the notice was issued for "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income", while the order levying penalty was for "concealment of income" and that the penalty order is liable to be squashed for this sole reason

Flair Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-9(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7091/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, SR. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 43(5)

added back to the total income of the assessee company. The undersigned is satisfied that the assessee company has concealed income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, and hence penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately. Addition of Rs. 56,74,032” 8. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld

Dey Trading Co., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 49(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 2157/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

mention the amount of concealment rather it has only been mentioned that “you have concealed the particulars of your income……….” Furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The Ld. Counsel cited a decision passed by ITAT, Mumbai in Jatin Enterprises vs. ACIT, 3 I.T.A. No. 2157/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dey Trading ... vitiate the penalty proceedings. In the present case, we find that in assessment order the Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income only. Since, both limbs i.e. “concealed particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income” are recorded in the notice, the notice

Joel Jewellery Works, Thrissur vs. ITO WD-2(2), Thrissur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 555/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Joel Jewellery Works .......... Appellant Chiyaram P.O., Thrissur 680006 [Pan: Aagfj1072R] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2(2), Thrissur Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.01.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 29.12.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Jewellery. The Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 Was Filed On 26.01.2017 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs. 5,00,140/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Thrissur (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 10.12.2018 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) At A Total Income

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

source. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by alleging that the appellant is guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant contested the addition before the appellate forum. The appellant responded to the show ... appellant filed detailed explanation stating that the appellant cooperated with the Department in the assessment proceedings and has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income. However, the AO proceeded with levy of penalty of Rs. 12,58,100/- vie order dated 26.06.2019. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before

Suburban Builders Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-8(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1135/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kapadia, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated for concealing the particulars of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 3. The assessee being aggrieved challenged the reopening of the case u/s 147 of the Act and the addition on merit as well, by filling first appeal

Mrs. Neeta Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 6416/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Dhiraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 148Section 251(1)

6416/Del/2016 are directed against the Assessing Officer’s and the CIT(A)’s respective actions holding her to have concealed and furnished inaccurate particulars of income regarding the claim of cost of acquisition ITA Nos. 2186 & 6416/Del/2016 Neeta Gupta and the one resulting in enhancement after treatment of long term ... STCG over and above the finding of the AO. Therefore, the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in respect of income of Rs.53,82,812/- and change of LTCG to STCG within the meaning of explanation

Mrs. Neeta Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 2186/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Dhiraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 148Section 251(1)

Mrs. Neeta Gupta, New Delhi vs. CIT (Appeals)-Xxvi, New Delhi

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 5461/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Dhiraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 148Section 251(1)

Ranjit Thakur, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

ITA 1121/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Ranjit Thakur The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is also being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee and concealing her income. Addition on a/c of unexplained investment for purchase of shares, As per the ITS data, assessee ... from other sources. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is also being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee and concealing her income. Further, as per provisions of section 139[1] of the I.T. Act, 1961, it was required

Sejal Jignesh Shah, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer-19(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 444/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Penalty provisions u/s.271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the IT Act are hereby initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 8. A perusal of the above shows that the AO has hurriedly made the addition without realizing that the assessee has not booked any loss in the garb

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bandra vs. Godavari Corporation Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the revenue appeals ITA No

ITA 6043/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 69C

added u/s. 69C of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act were also initiated against the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal against the assessment order dated 27.03.2022 before learned CIT(A), who deleted the aforesaid additions made

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune vs. Bank of Maharashtra, Pune

ITA 428/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)

loss account, is hereby disallowed and added to the total income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 15. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee holding that the assessee has not explained the nature

Bank of Maharashtra, Pune vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 259/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S Ananthan & Smt. Abarna CAFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)

DCIT, Central Circle - 7(1), Mumbai vs. Triumph Securities Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 962/MUM/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (VirtuallyFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel – Spl. Counsel

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

whereas the fact is that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated in the original assessment order for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on some issues. 2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty ... notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c), whereas the fact is that no limb of charge Le. neither furnishing inaccurate particulars of income nor concealment of income, was inapplicable as per the satisfaction recorded by the A.O. under section 271(1)(c) in the assessment order, which was duly served

Khosla Machines Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle 1 (1), Chandigarh

In the result, the penalty so levied and sustained u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby directed to be deleted

ITA 726/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35

29/09/2017, the deduction so claimed was restricted to Rs. 76,50,000/- by the Assessing officer. Separately, penalty proceeding were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and after calling for the explanation from the assessee but not finding the same acceptable, order dt. 24/03/2022 was passed under section ... levying penalty amounting to Rs. 59,249/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which on appeal has been sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) and against the said findings, the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that during the course

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Parekh Dyes and Chemicals, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3807/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Mr. N. S. Porwal &For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani

Section 143(3)Section 27Section 271(1)(c)

Thereafter, Ld. AO levied a penalty of Rs. 53,272/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Vide order dated 06.06.2024, the appeal

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Parekh Dyes and Chemicals, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3806/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Mr. N. S. Porwal &For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani

Section 143(3)Section 27Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Parekh Dyes and Chemicals, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3775/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Mr. N. S. Porwal &For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani

Section 143(3)Section 27Section 271(1)(c)

Brizo Reality Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms

ITA 2941/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanbrizo Reality Company Private Vs. Nfac Delhi Limited Maharashtra. 802 B, Grande Palladium, Near Mercedez Showroom, Cst Road, Kalina, Santacruz East, Maharashtra – 400 098 Pan: Aaecb5443M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 24Section 271(1)(c)

Bench has deleted the penalty imposed by AO. Therefore, it cannot be said that assessee has concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Hence, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable. 11. For the above reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the revenue has failed