“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, New Delhi vs. M/S Inx News Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 1788/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Media Company Pvt. Ltd. Revenue has also challenged the deletion of penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for allegedly furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13. 3. During the course of hearing learned AR at the outset pointed out the fact that

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Inx News Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 1787/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji vs. M/S Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd, Panaji

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 99/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR

Section 43B

suppression of sales value/under-invoicing. Penalty u/s 217 (1)(c) of the I. T. Act, 1961 for suppression of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is initiated separately. 6. The ld. CIT(A), as evident from his order, has given specific M/s.Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd. findings discussing each

M/S Salitho Ores Private Limited, Panaji vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - M1, Margao

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 72/PAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR

Section 43B

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji vs. M/S Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd, Panaji

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 100/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR

Section 43B

ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Zensar Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed while the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3492/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3Section 94(7)

revenue account and as per the deeming provisions of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c), the addition made tantamounted to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty ... imposed on capitalization of software expenses of Rs 26,40,800/-, as to this extent the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact, that the addition

Jammu & Kashmir State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-II, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 249/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar20 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.249/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13

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

penalty order is bad in law, as the Ld. AO is himself not clear whether the penalty is levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income. 3. The penalty order is bad in law, as the basis of initiation of penalty proceedings

Hasmukhbhai Dahyabhai Patel, Vapi vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 115/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr- DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

initiated against him. That is, the penalty is on ‘account of concealment of income’ or on account of ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’ is not clear from the penalty notice therefore the penalty so levied, is vitiated. 8. On merit, Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that assessee has submitted ... vivid that penalty has been initiated on account of “concealment of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”, that is on both the limbs. However, we note that Assessing Officer has initiated penalty on account of “concealment of income” only. We note that the Assessing Officer has not strike

Ashok Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1085/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 271

concealing particulars of income and penalty was accordingly levied being 100% of the tax on the income sought to be evaded by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 7. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the assessment order and also the order levying the penalty read with order

Ashok Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1084/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 271

Ashok Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1083/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 271

Ashok Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1082/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 271

Jt CIT (OSD), CC-3(1), Mumbai vs. Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 498/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blejt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Central Circle – 3(1) 1, Sundaram Bunglow Room No. 1924, 19Th Floor Lambe Hanuman Road Air India Building, Nariman Point Opp. Saiffe Society Mumbai – 400 021 Gujrat - 395006 Pan: Ajyps2262F (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.164/Mum/2021 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 498/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2007-08)] Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani V. Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) 1, Sundaram Bunglow Central Circle – 3(1) Room No. 1924, 19Th Floor Lambe Hanuman Road Air India Building, Nariman Point Opp. Saiffe Society Mumbai – 400 021 Gujrat - 395006 Pan: Ajyps2262F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Bharat Kumar Department Represented By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153A

addition is restricted toRs.32,38,00,000/-. Penalty proceedings u.s,271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. 8. Further, on perusal of the bank account no. 550011024229 in ING Vysya bank, it is seen that the assessee has deposited ... from undisclosed sources. Penalty proceedings u.s,271(1)(c)r.w.s. 274 Page No.30 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income.” 50. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal and challenged the additions made by the Assessing Officer

Smt. Dipalben Manish Patel, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of our observations above

ITA 215/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 215/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Dipalben Manish Patel 4-502, Near Maharashtra Mandal, Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Alupp3271B

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

specifying for which default penalty Notice was issued viz., for concealing the particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, prayed to cancel the penalty levied at Rs. 1,90,000/-. 3. That under the facts & the law, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi further erred ... notice issued u/s 274 of the Act the AO had used conjunction “or” to mention both limbs, i.e, concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and charge for levy of penalty was not explicitly clear from notice, then, the same was to be held

DCIT-CC-27, New Delhi vs. Anshika Consultants Pvt Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 35/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.” Cross Objection

Section 115JSection 136(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

reason why such investment should be excluded while computing disallowance under rule 8D. Penalty U/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5.7 In view of the above discussion, average amount of investment is computed as follows:- Opening Balance Investment 533951321 Closing Balance Investment

ITO, Ward 1(3)(1), Surat vs. Amitbhai Vasantlal Shah, Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 474/SRT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.474/Srt/2023 (Ay 2009-10) (Hearing In Physical Court) Income Tax Officer, Ward Amitbhai Vasantlal Shah No.1(3)(1) Surat, Room No.203, C, Ground Floor, Ravijyot Vs Income Tax Office, Anavil Apartment, Opp. Lourds Business Centre, Adajan-395009 Convent School, Athwalines, Surat-395001 Pan Apxps 3639 J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 10(38)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

erred in deleting the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer Amitbhai V Shah amounting to Rs.1,32,46,900/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by showing income earned from business trading activity under the head LTCG and claimed huge non eligible exemption

Bahar Ahmed, Bijnor vs. ACIT, Najibabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1004/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[A.Y. 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri PC Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 271Section 274

Unexplained credits in respect of Thar International amounting to Rs.21,54,935/-. 4. The penalty proceedings were separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. The penalty was levied at Rs.2254422/- vide order dated 25.09.2019 for concealment of income. 6. The notice issued u/s. 274 dated 29.12.2016 reads ... under :- 4 7. It can be seen that the additions were made and the satisfaction drawn was for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income the penalty was levied for concealment of income and the notice is completely silent in respect of under which limb of the relevant provision the penalty

Ashok Kumar Singh, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-2(2), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of our observations above

ITA 150/RPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 150/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ashok Kumar Singh P-10, Rishab Green City, Pulgaon, Durg-491 001 (C.G) Pan : Bcfps1394K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-2(2), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

notice issued u/s 274 of the Act the AO had used conjunction “or” to mention both limbs, i.e, concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and charge for levy of penalty was not explicitly clear from notice, then, the same was to be held

Raj Kishore Prasad, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Valsad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 146/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.146/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Hearing) Raj Kishore Prasad, Vs. The Ito, 201, 2Nd Floor, Devashish Complex, Ward-3, Nr. Regenta Central Antarim Hotel, Valsad Off Cg Road, Ahmedabad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aitpp0535A (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 10(5)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

provisions u/s 10(5) of the IT. Act, 1961.Therefore, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to the same extent. The Assessing Officer had issued show cause notice u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s 274 of the Act to the assessee vide ... find the reply tenable following which minimum penalty of Rs. 65,060/- was levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat vs. M/S. K. G. Developers, Surat

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 433/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Assessee has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income to impose penalty us 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of case ... approval granted initially should have been considered. Such explanation of assessee was not accepted. The Assessing Officer thereby levied penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Aggrieved by the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before