← 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

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 6744/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 6743/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Pacl Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2884/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, however, Assessing Officer rejected the same and proceeded to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.12,51,51,671/- which is 100% of the tax sought to be evaded.

Section 132Section 133ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

initiated the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, for concealing the particulars of income/ furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and also issued show cause notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, along with the assessment order. DCIT vs. M/s PACL Ltd. (ii) Aggrieved by the above additions

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 3627/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 3626/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 3625/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 3624/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 3623/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 3368/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

Infotek Netalia Ltd, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle-11, Pune

ITA 1004/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1004/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Infotek Netalia Ltd., V The Acit, Commerzone, I T Park, S Circle-11, Pune. Yerawada, Pune – 411004. Pan: Aabci2205B Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mr.Abhineet P For Prateek Jha – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 19.07.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Erred In Deciding The Appeal Of The Assessee Ex-Parte Without Granting The Assessee Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Erred In Passing The Appellate Order Entirely Based On The Observations Of The Ld Ao & Without Appreciating That The Business Of The Assessee Company Was Closed & There Was No Employee To Handle The Income Tax Matters. Infotek Netalia Ltd., [A]

Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

were prima facie acceptable. 5. The Ld CIT(A), NFAC, erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 7. The appellant craves leave to furnish Additional Evidence which

Surendra Rameshwardas Gadodia, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the addition of total amount of Rs

ITA 4855/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R Singh – Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Dinesh R Chourasia Sr. AR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

under section 68 of the act. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for 7 ITA No. 4855/MUM.2023 SURENDRA R. GADODIA furnishing inaccurate particulars of income with a view to concealment of income.” 7. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available in record. The issue

Sh. Jagmohan Singh, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 421/CHANDI/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

brought to tax under the head “long term capital gains”. Separately, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income resulting in concealment of income by the assessee. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order ... personal exigencies. It was submitted that making of a claim which has been disallowed by the AO cannot be held to be furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and made the basis for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and in support, reliance was placed

Shiv Shraddha Developer, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle -3 Kalyan, Kalyan

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

ITA 944/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.944/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar ParidaFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 30.03.2017 by holding that the appellant firm is guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income rejecting the explanation that the claim made by the assessee is bonafide. 4. Being aggrieved by the above penalty order, an appeal

Nitinkumar Mulchand Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO-24(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

ITA 4824/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhannitinkumar Mulchand Shah Vs. Ito-24(3)(2), Ward No. Shop No. 6, V.R. Posha Chawl, 24(3) (1), Jijamata Road, Pump House, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai Andheri (East), Mumbai – – 400012. 400093. Pan: Aafps7328J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 141Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

unexplained money and is added u/s. 69A of the Act. Penalty proceedings- initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. Coming to the deposits reflected in Form 26AS of Rs. 24,07,205/-, it is explained by the assessee in Para ... assessed accordingly in his hand, under the head “Business Income”. Penalty proceedings-initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 9. In the computation of total income, the assessee has claimed deduction for expenses on account of interest paid

Lyka Labs Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 1417/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar Beig
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

submitted that the AO has not specified whether the penalty has been levied for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The learned AR in support of his submission placed reliance upon various decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court including the decision of the Larger

Lyka Labs Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 1416/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar Beig
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

submitted that the AO has not specified whether the penalty has been levied for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The learned AR in support of his submission placed reliance upon various decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court including the decision of the Larger

Lyka Labs Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 1415/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar Beig
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

submitted that the AO has not specified whether the penalty has been levied for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The learned AR in support of his submission placed reliance upon various decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court including the decision of the Larger

DCIT, CC-4(2), Kolkata vs. Tharur Bhaskaran, Kolkata

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 590/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

little higher rate than imposed normally in other cases by reason of the concealment of particulars of his income or by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 17. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the order of ld. CIT(Appeals). 18. We find that

DCIT, CC-4(2), Kolkata vs. Tharur Bhaskaran, Kolkata

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 589/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

little higher rate than imposed normally in other cases by reason of the concealment of particulars of his income or by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 17. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the order of ld. CIT(Appeals). 18. We find that

DCIT, CC-4(2), Kolkata vs. Tharur Bhaskaran, Kolkata

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 588/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

little higher rate than imposed normally in other cases by reason of the concealment of particulars of his income or by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 17. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the order of ld. CIT(Appeals). 18. We find that