“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

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

ITA 543/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

income of Rs. 14,09,150/-. While framing assessment, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of wrong claim of deductions amounting to Rs 1,59,000/- under Chapter-VIA of the income-tax Act, wrong claim ... required to explain as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be imposed in the case for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of excessive claim of deduction amounting to Rs. 1,59,000/- under chapter VIA of the Income-tax Act, for wrong

Swan Petrchemicals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. NFAC Delhi, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 496/IND/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Swan Petrochemicals Dcit (Central), Pvt.Ltd, Indore Unit No.308 Acme Plaza, Opp. Sangam Cinema, Vs. Andheri Kurlka, Maharashtra (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcr9592C Assessee By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & Ms. Ruchira Singhal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.07.2024 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43(5)

Pvt.Ltd 6.2 The A.O has consciously deleted all irrelevant and unrelated part of the show cause notice and only the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was mentioned in the show cause notice. Thus, it is a case of initiation of penalty proceedings against a specific charge of furnishing

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1 Nasshik, Nashik vs. Harsh Constructions Private Limited, Nashik

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

ITA 302/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 1, Harsh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Nashik Sanskruti, Murkute Colony, Vs. New Pandit Colony, Sharanpur Road, Nashik – 422002 Pan: Aacch2277H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj S. Dandgaval Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 03-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.12.2023 Of The Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue In The Grounds Of Appeal Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Restricting The Disallowance To Rs.2,24,191/- As Against Rs.1,25,51,607/- Proposed By The Assessing Officer In The Remand Report As Against Rs.4,38,96,880/- Added By Him In The Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj S. DandgavalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 133Section 133(5)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed certain details, based on which the ld.CIT(A) sought remand report from the Assessing Officer, who proposed an addition

Shri Khatu Shyam Builders, Jaipur vs. ACIT Central Circle 2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 486/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

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

without specifically pointing out in the show cause notice, whether the penalty was proposed on concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by delting

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1872/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

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

upheld by CIT(A) as well as ITAT. The AO has levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) on the ground that the appellant furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of such disallowances/additions. During the appellant proceedings, the appellant submitted that in response to the notice u/s.271(1)(c) dated

Bhuraram V. Choudhary, Mumbai vs. I.T.O., Ward-19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assesse are allowed

ITA 4404/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Ravi GuptaFor Respondent: Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

4404/Mum/2023 Bhuraram V. Choudhary Vs. ITO, Wad 19(1)(2) 29.03.2019, the AO has levied penalty of Rs. 2,18,350/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty levied by the assessing officer

Bhuraram V. Choudhary, Mumbai vs. I.T.O., Ward-19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assesse are allowed

ITA 4403/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Ravi GuptaFor Respondent: Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Bhuraram V. Choudhary, Mumbai vs. I.T.O., Ward-19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assesse are allowed

ITA 4402/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Ravi GuptaFor Respondent: Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Arham Neej Deep Realtors, Palghar vs. Pravin Mohandas Chavan, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA 3973/Mum/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3973/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Ms. Niyati Mehta, CAFor Respondent: ShriManoj Kumar Sinha (SR.DR.)

Section 133ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

assumption and conjectures. a. On business income Rs. 82,00,000/-considering the same as alleged unexplained credits on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. b. On amount of Rs. 26,98,750/- on account of difference between the estimated profit as on date of survey and returned profit ... audited profit and loss account as on 31.03. 2014 allegedly considering the same as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. b) Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) erred in not providing enough opportunity for preparing and submitting the submission

Microsoft Corporation (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 6, Delhi

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

ITA 3671/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, 16(1), Vs Microsoft Corporation (India) New Delhi. Pvt. Ltd., 807, New Delhi House, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacm5586C Assessment Year: 2015-16 Microsoft Corporation (India) Pvt. Vs. Jcit, Ltd., Special Range-6, 807, New Delhi House, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacm5586C

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao &For Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 32Section 36(1)(va)

initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act on the ground of concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in levying interest under section 234D of the Act.” 5.1 The Revenue has also

ACIT, 16(1), New Delhi vs. Microsoft Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 3616/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao &For Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 32Section 36(1)(va)

Alosha Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 313/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Alosha Marketing Pvt. Ltd.,……………..………Appellant 62A, Hazra Road, Kolkata-700019 [Pan:Aacca1930G] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.…Respondent Circle-4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri N.S. Saini, A.R. & Priyanka Salarpuria, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 08, 2024 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

undisclosed income of the assessee of the previous year 2012-13. Penalty proceedings u/s 27l(1)(c) is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. [Addition: Rs.1,65,00,000/-] Subject to the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, the total income of the assessee is computed as under

DCIT, CC-III, Ludhiana vs. M/S Cosmas Research Lab Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 636/CHANDI/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 636/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Dcit, Vs. M/S Cosmos Research Lab बनाम Cc-Iii, Ltd., 56-C, Ludhiana Udham Singh Nagar, Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcc4782B ""यथ" / Respondent अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ( Virtual Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Gaurav Sharma, C.A. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Chandrajit Singh, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.05.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR

Section 36Section 68

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) for concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income are being initiated separately.” 9. The ld. CIT(A) in his order has given his findings on this issue as under:- “Regarding the interest payment

Anil Assudomal Manghnani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1328/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Advocate/Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. Sr. D.R

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

assessment order. 4. Thereafter, the AO vide order dated 01.04.2022 levied the penalty to the tune of Rs.1,71,600/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. On appeal the penalty levied was affirmed by the Ld. Commissioner. 6. The Assessee being aggrieved against the levy and affirmation of penalty

Sonal Infotech Private Limited, Vashi, Navi Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1094/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 271Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

provisions of section 57(iii) of the IT Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1(c) of the IT Act are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (Addition of Rs. 4,01,576/ 5. The ld. CIT(A) held that since appeal of the assessee was time barred

Jeetendra Chandrakant Nayak, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Incom Tax(OSD), Nagpur

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

ITA 368/NAG/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri M.G.Moryani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Singhai, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings under section 27(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income are hereby initiated.” 4. The appellant filed an appeal before the CIT (A), who has held as follows: “The AO in the assessment

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Shakuntlam Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

ITA 697/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik, CIT &

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)

ignoring the fact that the assessee has not disclosed the profit on the advances received from the customer and furnished inaccurate particulars of income." 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee filed its return of income on 27.09.2011 declaring total income ... facts and keeping in view the provisions of section 271(1)(c), the Id. AO found that the assessee is guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of amount of Rs. 1,97,04,164/-. For that reason, he hold that the 'Assessee' has committed default

System A D Solution India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Circle 11(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1337/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Avinash Baburao Karpe

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

assessed at INR 87,93,386/-. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4.1. Meanwhile, in the quantum appeal preferred by the Appellant, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai, vide combined order dated 23/11/2017

Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

Appeal is hereby disposed of for statistical purposes and the matter is

ITA 386/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

observations made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order dated 05.03.2016, that it was a case of concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee, as regards the assessment year 2013-14. 3. Hence, this appeal. 4. Arguments heard. File perused. 3 Rajasthan Renewable energy Corporation

Rita Hemchand Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ITO. Int Tax Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Ito. Int Tax Ward Rita Hemchand Gandhi 2(3)(1) Ayodhya Apartments, 17Th Floor, Air India Flat No.101, Ramgali, Vs. Building, Kandivali (West), Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 067 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akepg6370P

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 195Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

further submits that in the assessment order the learned assessing officer has not stated whether the assessee has concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. However in the show cause notice dated 27/3/2022 the learned assessing officer has mentioned that assessee has concealed the particulars of income ... invoked both limbs. Whereas in paragraph number eight of the order the AO was satisfied that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. He submits that the learned CIT – A has confirmed the addition on the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of MaK data. 08. He submits