← 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

The Jalgaon District Central Co Op Bank Ltd, Jalgaon vs. DCIT Circle-1 Jalgaon, Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2082/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

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

amount of Rs.33,90,000/- is added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings are 4 separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act. 7. Subject to the above remarks, revised computation of Income is as under : (a) Business Income

Mr. Madan Mohan Mishra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 10(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 4175/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 15Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

much as, he was not justified to impose a penalty of Rs. 6,08,625/- for alleged concealment of income / furnishing inaccurate particulars of income without clearing specifying the limb of section 271(c) of the Act, under which the penalty proceedings has been initiated and penalty levied. 3) That ... being 100% of the allegedly should to be evaded, for alleged furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The learned CIT(A) upheld the penalty. 4. In the course of hearing of the case before us, it was pointed out by the Ld. Authorised representative of the assessee that co-ordinate Bench

Del Monte Foods Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 9(1), New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1749/DEL/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1749/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2007-08) Del Monte Foods P. Ltd., Bharti Crescent 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase Ii, New Delhi 110070 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacf-8488-N बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 9(1), Cr Building, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Anil Bhalla, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 18/11/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 27.02.2024, For Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Shri Anil Bhalla, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Assessing Officer (Ao) Had Made Addition On Account Of Advances Written Off Amounting To Rs.3,20,34,757/- & Had Initiated

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

initiated 2 penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act’) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Notice u/s. 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act dated 31.12.2009 was served on the assessee (copy at page 78 of paper book). The notice

M/S. D.K. Industries, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 34(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1417/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

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

bank account without satisfactory explanation and hence, penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated for deliberately furnishing inaccurate particular of income. The said order of penalty proceeding has been placed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) wherein also appeal of the assessee has been ... showing interest income and showing less rental income. Accordingly, penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated, for deliberately furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, at the time of assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act made on 08.03.2013 issuing notice u/s 274 read with Section

Gujarat Insecticides Limited, Bharuch vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1) (Previously the ACIT, Circle-2, Bharuch), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 675/AHD/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.675/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2007-08 Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. The Dy.Cit बनाम/ Plot No.805-806 Circle-2(1)(1) V/S. Gidc Estate, Ankleshwar Vadodara-390 007 Bharuch,Ankleshwar – 393 002 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacg 8436 D अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay R. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

parallel with the quantum proceedings, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, alleging that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming the deduction of Rs.1,73,51,790/-. The AO concluded that the disallowance of the deduction demonstrated that the assessee ... addition of notional interest, without appreciating that assessee duly explained the adopted basis of claiming the deduction, accordingly, no question for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income arises. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining penalty levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on the premise that impugned deduction

Sara Investments, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-28(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1133/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarshri Vimal Kumar

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

furnishing AO considered it a case of concealment of income or furnishing AO considered it a case of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. inaccurate particulars of income. 1.2. The Hon'ble The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have quashed the notice dated CIT(A) ought

Jayantilal Dinesh Purohit, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-52, Mumbai

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

ITA 4725/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Shri. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri VimalPunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 274Section 68Section 69C

initiating the penalty proceeding u/s 274 r.w.s and 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6. The appellant craves the leave to add, amend, alter and/or delete any of the above grounds of appeal at/or before the time

Dilip Kapur, Pondicherry vs. ACIT, NFAC, Circle 1, Pondicherry

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 984/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 984/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dilip Kapur The Assistant Commissioner Of 7, Saint Martin Street, Income Tax, Pondicherry (Ut), Circle -1, Pondicherry – 605 001. Pondicherry – 605 003. [Pan: Adspd-4530-H ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

assessed. The reassessed income is the same as the originally assessed income u/s.143(3). Penalty uls.271(1)(c) is hereby initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as the Assessee has claimed wrong exemption u/s.10(38)." (emphasis added) 2. On lower authorities' orders: a. In the penalty order u/s.271 ... Revenue and the Supreme Court held that the mere making of claim not sustainable in law by itself will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding income of the Assessee and deleted the penalty u/s.271(1)(c). In doing so, the Supreme Court has held as following

Amitabha Sanyal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-58(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

ITA 359/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Nov 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amitabha Sanyal, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 254(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

Varkey 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 proceeding

M/S. Tropex Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. (Successor to Ultra Marketing Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1815/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.1371&1815/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Tropex Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To Ujjawal Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.).............................……….……Appellant 113, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata -1. [Pan:Aabct1459N] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(4), Kolkata............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Dutta, Cit-Dr & Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 30, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.03.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order 23.03.2015 & Another Order Dated 26.12.2023 Of The Cit(A) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Dated 28.09.2015 Against The Assessee. The Assessment Was Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’] Dated 23.03.2015 & The Penalty Proceedings Were Initiated U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 28.09.2015, Which Is Arising Out Of The Same Assessment Order Dated 23.03.2015. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Stated At The Bench That Since The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same Assessment Order & Relating To The Same Assessee, Therefore, They May Be Heard Together & Decided On Merits Of The Case. The Ld. Ar Has Further Stated That Ita No.1371/Kol/2024 Is Delayed By 404 Days & Ita

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

provisions of the Act. Additionally, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of the income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income upon the assessee. The ld. AR argued that since summons were not duly served upon the director of the assessee company as well

M/S. Tropex Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. (Successor to Ujjawal Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1371/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.1371&1815/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Tropex Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To Ujjawal Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.).............................……….……Appellant 113, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata -1. [Pan:Aabct1459N] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(4), Kolkata............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Dutta, Cit-Dr & Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 30, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.03.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order 23.03.2015 & Another Order Dated 26.12.2023 Of The Cit(A) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Dated 28.09.2015 Against The Assessee. The Assessment Was Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’] Dated 23.03.2015 & The Penalty Proceedings Were Initiated U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 28.09.2015, Which Is Arising Out Of The Same Assessment Order Dated 23.03.2015. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Stated At The Bench That Since The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same Assessment Order & Relating To The Same Assessee, Therefore, They May Be Heard Together & Decided On Merits Of The Case. The Ld. Ar Has Further Stated That Ita No.1371/Kol/2024 Is Delayed By 404 Days & Ita

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

provisions of the Act. Additionally, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of the income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income upon the assessee. The ld. AR argued that since summons were not duly served upon the director of the assessee company as well

Daga Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle -18, Delhi

ITA 790/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roydaga Commodities Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-18 Private Limited Ara Centre, Jhandewalan 114 New Delhi House, 27 Delhi Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, Delhi - 110001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcs5420N Appellant .. Respondent

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

income as well, the copies whereof has been duly submitted before us. Further that while imposing penalty on 29.09.2022 Ld. AO allegation furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee as recorded therein. Under this fact and circumstances of the matter, it is argued that recording of satisfaction ... Assessing Officer that there was concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee though sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings, the same has not been adhered to, rather the reasons first recorded on 23.03.2022 is on both the limbs. It is a settled principle

Ashok Kumar Grover, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-61(1), Delhi

ITA 2893/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roysh. Ashok Kumar Grover Vs. Acit 19, Siri Fort Road Circle 61(1) New Delhi-110049 Delhi-110001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aagpg6935L Appellant .. Respondent

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

income as well, the copies whereof has been duly submitted before us. Further that while imposing penalty on 07.12.2021 Ld. AO alleged furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee as recorded therein. Under this fact and circumstances of the matter, he argued that recording of satisfaction by the Assessing ... Officer that there was concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee though sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings, the same has not been adhered to, rather the reasons first recorded on 29.11.2016 is on both the limbs. It is a settled principle

DCIT, Pune vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 654/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Shri P R Mane
Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 44

disallowed and added back in the income of assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 6. The Assessing Officer further noted that the taxable profits and gains are required to be calculated considering the surplus / deficit arrived ... disallowed and added back in the income of assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 7. In appeal, the CIT(A) / NFAC following the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the preceding assessment years

DCIT, Pune vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 653/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Shri P R Mane
Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 44

disallowed and added back in the income of assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 6. The Assessing Officer further noted that the taxable profits and gains are required to be calculated considering the surplus / deficit arrived ... disallowed and added back in the income of assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 7. In appeal, the CIT(A) / NFAC following the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the preceding assessment years

Sukumar Buildwell Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 26, New Delhi

ITA 2101/DEL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Dcit Central Circle 26 M/S Sukumar Buildwell Private Limited, 914, 9Th New Delhi Floor, D-Mall, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi- 110034 Pan :Aaics7517H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Shilpi Jain, Ca Department By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr, Dr

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

circumstances of the matter, she argued that recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer that there was concealment Page2 of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee though sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings, the same has not been adhered to, rather the reasons first

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ankur Agrawal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2308/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit 4(1)(1), Mumbai Ankur Agrawal 2401, 2402, Anmol Pride, Opp. Vs. Patel Auto Petrol Pump, Off Sv Road Goregaon West, Mumbai- 400062. Pan: Akopa 7201 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

without appreciating the fact that proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income with a view to concealment of income? 7. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add new ground which may be necessary.” 2. Fact

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(1), Bengaluru vs. Smt. Vankadara Padmavathi, Hospet, Karnataka

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1374/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar E., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

without considering the facts of the case where the Assessing officer in the penalty order has clearly established that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income?” 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 31.10.2012 declaring total income of Rs.1 ... imposed on the assessee. 60. Clause (c) deals with two specific offences, that is to say, concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. No doubt, the facts of some cases may attract both the offences and in some cases there may be overlapping of the two offences

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Vipul Limited, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1047/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Before Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice & And & Shri M. Balaganesh Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Shri M. Balaganesh Shri M. Balaganesh Accountantmember Member

For Appellant: Shri Amit Katoch, Senior DRFor Respondent: None
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

claimed by the assessee were on account of inadvertent mistake and not due to any deliberate attempt to conceal its income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In fact, after verifying the facts and evidences on record, the first appellate authority has recorded a clear cut factual finding that ... assessee has not deliberately concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. That being the factual position on record, in our view, the first appellate authority was justified in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. Even otherwise also, on a perusal

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Vipul Limited, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1046/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Before Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice & And & Shri M. Balaganesh Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Shri M. Balaganesh Shri M. Balaganesh Accountantmember Member

For Appellant: Shri Amit Katoch, Senior DRFor Respondent: None
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

claimed by the assessee were on account of inadvertent mistake and not due to any deliberate attempt to conceal its income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In fact, after verifying the facts and evidences on record, the first appellate authority has recorded a clear cut factual finding that ... assessee has not deliberately concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. That being the factual position on record, in our view, the first appellate authority was justified in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. Even otherwise also, on a perusal