← 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

Prakashsinh Thakor, Surat vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 39/SRT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Prakashsinh Thakor, A.C.I.T., 53, Pratap Nagar, Delad, Olpad, Circle2(2), Vs. Surat-394540 Surat. Pan: Alhpt 9125 B Appellant Respondednt

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

half of the value claimed(shown) by assessee. Notice under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was separately issued for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The difference cost of acquisition between the assessee and the department amount to inaccurate particulars of income. The objection of assessee is accepted

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1125/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

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

Assessing Officer was conscious of assessee’s claim. 7. That being the case, the assessee cannot be accused of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is relevant to observe, penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act under identical facts and circumstances in assessee’s own case

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1124/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

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

Assessing Officer was conscious of assessee’s claim. 7. That being the case, the assessee cannot be accused of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is relevant to observe, penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act under identical facts and circumstances in assessee’s own case

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 4589/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

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

Assessing Officer was conscious of assessee’s claim. 7. That being the case, the assessee cannot be accused of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is relevant to observe, penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act under identical facts and circumstances in assessee’s own case

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 4588/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

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

Assessing Officer was conscious of assessee’s claim. 7. That being the case, the assessee cannot be accused of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is relevant to observe, penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act under identical facts and circumstances in assessee’s own case

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3449/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

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

Assessing Officer was conscious of assessee’s claim. 7. That being the case, the assessee cannot be accused of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is relevant to observe, penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act under identical facts and circumstances in assessee’s own case

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3448/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

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

Assessing Officer was conscious of assessee’s claim. 7. That being the case, the assessee cannot be accused of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is relevant to observe, penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act under identical facts and circumstances in assessee’s own case

Gtpl Rajwadi Network Pvt. Ltd., Bamroli vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir-1(1)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr- DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

expenditure and accordingly the Assessing Officer added the same and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. During the course of penalty proceeding, the assessee was provided several opportunities of being heard to counter the findings of the Assessing Officer, however ... technical error impact fees was debited to professional fees account thus, error was committed through inadvertence and there was no intention to furnish inaccurate particulars of income. Hence, penalty is not penal in nature, the amount has been incurred during the course of doing business, hence, penalty should

Sagarkumar Ishwarbhai Bhavani, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-32(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 75/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.75/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Sagarkumar Ishwarbhai बिधम/ Ito, Ward-32(3)(3) Bhavani Room No. 105, C-Wing, Vs. 1St Floor, Kautilya D-103 D-103, Amozan Park Ii Devki Nagar Link Road, Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra Borivali-West-400103. (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agupb5616P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Joshi (Amicus Curiae) Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 16.12.2022 For Ay. 2016-17. 2. Grounds Raised By Assessee Are As Under: - “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao Erred In Wrongly Holding That Service Tax Is Liable To Be Included In The Turnover For The Purpose Of Tax Audit Which Is Against The Definition Of Turnover As Per Institute Of Chartered Accountants Of India Guidelines. Without Prejudice To The Above 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao Erred In Adding An Amount Of Rs.8,31,631/- By Adopting Arbitrary Rate Of Net Profit @ 15% While Computing Income As Per Normal Provisions Of The Act & Wrongly Holding That The Appellant Is Outside The Purview Of Section 44Ad & The Cit(A) Erred In Partly Confirming The Same.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi (Amicus Curiae)For Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta
Section 234ASection 274Section 28Section 30Section 44A

Rs.8,31,631/is hereby made in the business income of the assessee. Penalty proceeding u/s.274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. Penalty is also initiated u/s.274 r.w.s. 271B for not audited books of accounts.” 5. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred

Arun I. Keswani, Mumbai vs. ACIT-21(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 727/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 are initiated separately for concealment of income / furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A) where similar submissions were made by the assessee. The CIT(A) rejected the submissions

I.G.International Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT- Central Circle- 1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 123/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.123/मुं/2023 ("न.व. 2015-16) I.G. International Pvt. Ltd. 802, 8Th Floor, Akshar Bluechip Building, Thane Belapur Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai – 400 705. Pan: Aacci-2508-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit – Central Circle – 1(3), 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/ Shri Ashok Mehta & Dipesh Vora ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri V.S.Mahajan, Sr. A.R सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: S/ Shri Ashok Mehta &For Respondent: Shri V.S.Mahajan, Sr. A.R
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35D

that the Assessing Officer has recorded satisfaction for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, wherein both the limbs of section ... invoked i.e. “ concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income”. Both the limbs are mentioned with conjunction ‘or’. This clearly indicate that , there was an ambiguity in the mind of Assessing Officer while issuing notice as to under which limb notice has to be issued. The Assessing Officer

Mr. Prahlad G Prajapati, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 783/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2011-12
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ujjwal Chavhan
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

vide penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s 274 of the Act the A.O has levied penalty of Rs.1,91,593/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Heard the ld. D.R and perused the material on record. Without

M/S Ramnarain and Co., Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-17(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 347/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

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

levying a penalty without specifying the limb whether it is 2 ITA 347/Mum/2023 M/s Ramanarain And Company for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action ... Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) by issuing a show cause notice for the reason that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and that the quantum appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) has been dismissed. The assessee submitted that the profits were

Mane Finance Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 346/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2023AY 2014-15
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

purposes of calculation of MAT u/s 115JB. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act are separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 5. Before us, ld. Counsel submitted that the ld. AO has completely misunderstood and misinterpreted the facts because before the ld. AO it was clarified

Arun Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 35(8), New Delhi

In the result the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1204/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: V. Rajkuamr, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D. R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) 9 Arun Kumar Aggarwal Vs. ITO of the I.T. Act, 1961 is being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 11. It is not in dispute that the original assessment order was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 14/11/2014. Further

Taj Exim International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6356/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannushri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Agarwal a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

Return as was considered proper by the assessee and that there is no deliberate intention on the part of the assessee in furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing the particulars of any amount in his Return of Income. 5. CIT(Appeals)-7 confirmed the order passed

Mohd. Jawed, Bijnor vs. ITO Ward - 3(3), Bijnor

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

ITA 126/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2011-12
Section 271

passed on total income of Rs. 16,85,210/- the penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. During the penalty proceedings, A.O. imposed penalty of Rs. 28,000/- vide order dated 20/10/2017. The order passed

Nirmala Devi, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 40(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 1968/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Department by: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D
Section 271Section 271CSection 274

same has been issued for both the limbs of section 271 (1 )(c) i.e. for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, thereby imposing the penalty under both the limbs of the section 271(1 )(c). Hence, the penalty order under section 271 (1 )(c) is illegal

M/S Trine Entertainment Ltd, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 276/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Bhavya Bansal GoyalFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 40

deduction of tax at source. The Assessing Officer also levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. We heard the parties on this issue. This is also a case where the disallowance is required to be made in view of legal ... Brooke Bond India Ltd. vs CIT, 225 ITR 798 (SC) and levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 7. We heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. In our view, it is a case where assessee has made

Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Maharashtra vs. ITO Wasrd-3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 41/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -1(1)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -3(3)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) With Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 22/03/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 & A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

added the same to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealment of income.” 11. Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that the issue has been discussed and examined by the Assessing Officer in the original