“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

ACIT Circle-59(1), New Delhi vs. Ateeq Ahmed, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 5095/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 5095 & 5096/Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15) Acit Vs. Sh. Ateeq Ahmed Circle-59(1), 306/7, Iiird Floor, Delhi Aditya Complex, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aeipa7958R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

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. The explanation to section 271(1) raises a presumption of concealment, when a difference is noticed by the Assessing officer, between reported and assessed ... that in the assessment order the assessing officer has formed an opinion that on all the three counts the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealed his income therefore penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c) of the Act should be initiated. These observations in the assessment order

Shri Mahendrakumar H. Adhvaryu, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(3), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1814/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. Mahendrakumar H. Adhvaryu, Income Tax Officer, A-8, Classic Palace, Talav Gate, Ward-3(3)(3), Bodakdev, Ahmedabad-380054 Ahmedabad Pan : Aezpa 8877 Q अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Anurag Chandra, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Cit(A)” For Short] Dated 28.08.2019, Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Pertaining To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Raised Are As Under:- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Giving A Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing To The Appellant Which Is In Violation Of The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Stepping Into The Shoes Of The Appellant To Confirm The Additions. 3. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming Addition Of Cash In Hand Of Rs.62,76,216/- U/S 68 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Anurag Chandra, Sr DR

Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

provisions u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act during the year under consideration. A penalty proceeding is also initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on the said addition.” 7. The ld. CIT(A) found no merit in the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Karad Satara vs. The Karad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd, Karad Satara

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 919/PUN/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

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

assessee claimed an excess deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act in the return of income which establishes the fact of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and the ld. CIT(A) ought not to have deleted the penalty. 8. The ld. AR, Smt. Deepa Khare on the other hand ... mere disallowance of excess claim for want of creation of requisite provision which, in our considered opinion, does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, nor can it be said that it is false claim. Therefore, the ratio of decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

Tribhuvan Sharda, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6 (2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 199/JPR/2024[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 148Section 151Section 69

assessee. Further, the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 are also being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. 4 ITA 199/JP/2024 TRIBHUVAN SHARDA VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR HOUSEHOLD/PERSONAL EXPENSES: The assessee has not furnished any explanation

Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 789/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 43(1)

held that merely on account of disallowance of claim by itself does not amount for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-I reported in 348 ITR 306 dated 25.09.2012 has been ... Calcutta High Court is set aside.” Here it is submitted that under the old provision of section 271(1)(c), furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is pari-materiawith the provisions of section 270A dealing with the misreporting of income for which the penalty is levied in the impugned order thus

Jaipur Telecom Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 788/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 43(1)

Mack Star Marketing Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 1812/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

Section 23

with explanation I thereto, of the I T Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income.” 12. In A.Y. 2008-09 again assessment order is framed under section 143(3) r.w.s

Mack Star Marketing Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 1709/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

Section 23

Suchit Arvindbhai Patel, Gandhinagar vs. ITO, Ward-4, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1683/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

provision under section 271(1)(c) of the Act ignoring submission of the appellant that there is neither concealment of income nor furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which leads to invocation of penalty. 2. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that appellant is the third co-owner ... failed to appreciate that ld. AO failed to record proper satisfaction as to penalty for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and without proper satisfaction penalty order required to be quashed. It be so held now.” 3. Information AIR data reveal that during the financial year

Chandravadan Desai, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 674/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 674/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Chandravadan Desai Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Sb Tower, 3Rd Floor Vs Kolkata 37, Shakespeare Sarani Circus Avenue S.O. Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aabdh5812Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (In Short ‘Ld. First Appellate Authority’) Dt. 09/05/2023 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’), Dt. 30/12/2016 Relevant To Assessment Year 2014-15 Framed By Acit, Circle-32, Kolkata. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Lower Authorities Inspite Of Being Aware That Chandravadan Desai Huf Had Been Partitioned & Had Ceased To Exist Upon Its Partition On The 26Th Day Of March 2014 & The Impugned Penalty Order Passed By The Ao In The Name Of Chandravadan Desai Huf, A Non-Existent Person Was Invalid & Therefore The Order Deserves To Be Cancelled.

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

reason that the AO was unjustified in levying penalty for alleged concealment of particulars, whereas penalty had been initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to the above, the impugned order ought ... observe that notice u/s 274 of the Act has been issued on 30/12/2016 leveling the charge against the assessee for having furnished inaccurate particulars of income and thereafter framed the penalty order on 30/06/2017 for concealing particulars of income. Admittedly, both the showcause notice

DCIT, Circle- 20(1), New Delhi vs. Polyplex Corporation Limited., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 701/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Dcit, Vs Polyplex Corporation Limited, Circle-20(1), 40, New Mandakini, Greater New Delhi Kailash, New Delhi-110092. Pan-Aaacp0278J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri Aman Garg, Ca Date Of Hearing 04.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.04.2024

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(2)(AB)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 90

vide order dated 28.06.2019, imposed penalty in respect of disallowance of INR 1,76,87,054/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Thus, the AO imposed penalty of INR 60,11,830/-. 4. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, deleted ... Revenue submitted that the assessee had wrongly claimed deduction u/s 35(2)(AB) of the Act hence, he furnished inaccurate particulars of income. He contended that under the facts, the AO was justified in imposing the impugned penalty. Had the case of the assessee was not taken up for scrutiny

Akar Laminators Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 600/AHD/2023[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: This Tribunal & The Case Was Set-Aside Vide Order Dated 01.08.2014 In Ita No. 858 & 927/Ahd/2005 & Accordingly Assessment Was Finalized U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act & The Total Loss Was Determined At (-) Rs.22,47,26,293/- After Making Following Additions/Disallowances:

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

from the old premises. It is thereafter the AO initiated penalty proceeding by issuing statutory notice u/s.274 dated 29-01-2016 for “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” and striking of the portion “Concealed the particulars of Income”. It is thereafter a show cause notice dated 07-07-2016 was issued ... passing the Asst. Order and while issuing show cause notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 was for "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income" whereas the penalty order passed by the AO is for "concealment of particulars of income". The penalty levied

Dharmenbhai Mahendrabhai Sutaria, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 253/AHD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Lacs. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of concealment of income by furnishing inaccurate particular of income. Once the impugned addition of Rs. 65 Lacs was confirmed by the learned CIT(A) vide order dated ... agricultural land, and, thus, was not exempt from tax and assessee was consciously aware of real position and knowingly furnished inaccurate particulars of income in return that land sold was an agricultural land, there was willful concealment and, thus, penalty was to be levied under section 271(1)(c)-Held

Dharmenbhai Mahendrabhai Sutaria, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 252/AHD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Dharmenbhai Mahendrabhai Sutaria, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 251/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Sanjay Kishanlal Bishnoi, Ahmedabad

ITA 297/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Sh. Umedsingh Bhati & Sh. Abhimanyu SinghFor Respondent: Sh. Subhendu Das, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 253(3)Section 69C

added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings are also initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (Addition of Rs. 1,80,69,095/-)” AYs:2014-15 & 2015-16 Sh. Sanjay Kishanlal Bishnoi 4.4 The AO on examination ... same is added to the Total Income. Penalty proceedings are also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of Income. (Addition of Rs. 3,72,73,680/-)” 4.6. Thus, the AO framed assessment by assessing income at Rs. 7,74,52,072/- as against returned income of Rs. 40,40,202/-, vide

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Sanjay Kishanlal Bishnoi, Ahmedabad

ITA 296/AHD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Sh. Umedsingh Bhati & Sh. Abhimanyu SinghFor Respondent: Sh. Subhendu Das, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 253(3)Section 69C

Neel Kanth Gum and Chemicals, Jhunjhunu vs. ACIT, Circle Jhunjhunu, Income Tax Office, Jhunjhunu

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 805/JPR/2023[A.Y. 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2024

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 801Section 80I

Duty Draw Back Provision amounting to Rs.53,82,360/-. Simultaneously, penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is also worthwhile to mention from the penalty order dated 22-03-2017 wherein the AO proceeded to levy the penalty

Sobhi Lal Saini, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-61(1), Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 167/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 271(1)(c)

long term capital gain. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and vide penalty order dated 26.03.2022 imposed a penalty of Rs. 18,24,900/-. Aggrieved against it the assessee preferred appeal ... claim of exemption. The figures of capital gain were already on the file of AO and therefore assessee had not concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. He prayed for deletion of penalty in question. 4. Learned DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of authorities below

Shivnandan Prasad & Sons, Hapur vs. ITO Ward-2(3)(5), Hapur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 854/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Nitish Garg, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Javed Akhtar, CIT-DR

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

computed on estimated basis penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. The ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. Heard rival submissions perused the orders of the authorities below