← 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

D.Srinivas Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2692/CHNY/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

failed to appreciate that the assessing officer did not record any satisfaction that the assessee had concealed particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty is therefore to be deleted. 4. The assessing officer levied penalty based on a notice that did not specify whether the proceedings ... were initiated on furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of particulars of income. 3 I.T.A. No.2691 & 2692/Chny/18 & 2693 to 2698/Chny/18 5. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that levy of penalty on a notice that did not specify the charge of penalty renders the penalty proceedings void

D.Srinivas Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2691/CHNY/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

failed to appreciate that the assessing officer did not record any satisfaction that the assessee had concealed particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty is therefore to be deleted. 4. The assessing officer levied penalty based on a notice that did not specify whether the proceedings ... were initiated on furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of particulars of income. 3 I.T.A. No.2691 & 2692/Chny/18 & 2693 to 2698/Chny/18 5. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that levy of penalty on a notice that did not specify the charge of penalty renders the penalty proceedings void

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai vs. Hemendra Merchant, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 858/MUM/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 5 of the I.T. Act are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 13.2 On perusal of the above table of sundry creditors, we find that all those sundry creditors are in respect of partnership firms and not in relation

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai vs. Hemendra Merchant, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 857/MUM/2022[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 5 of the I.T. Act are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 13.2 On perusal of the above table of sundry creditors, we find that all those sundry creditors are in respect of partnership firms and not in relation

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai vs. Hemendra Merchant, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 856/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 5 of the I.T. Act are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 13.2 On perusal of the above table of sundry creditors, we find that all those sundry creditors are in respect of partnership firms and not in relation

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Hemendra Merchant, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 855/MUM/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 5 of the I.T. Act are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 13.2 On perusal of the above table of sundry creditors, we find that all those sundry creditors are in respect of partnership firms and not in relation

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai vs. Hemendra Merchant, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 854/MUM/2022[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 5 of the I.T. Act are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 13.2 On perusal of the above table of sundry creditors, we find that all those sundry creditors are in respect of partnership firms and not in relation

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai vs. Hemendra Merchant, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 853/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 5 of the I.T. Act are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 13.2 On perusal of the above table of sundry creditors, we find that all those sundry creditors are in respect of partnership firms and not in relation

Hemendra Ranchooddas Merchant, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 812/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 5 of the I.T. Act are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 13.2 On perusal of the above table of sundry creditors, we find that all those sundry creditors are in respect of partnership firms and not in relation

Hemendra Ranchooddas Merchant, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 811/MUM/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 5 of the I.T. Act are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 13.2 On perusal of the above table of sundry creditors, we find that all those sundry creditors are in respect of partnership firms and not in relation

Hemendra Ranchooddas Merchant, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 810/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 5 of the I.T. Act are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 13.2 On perusal of the above table of sundry creditors, we find that all those sundry creditors are in respect of partnership firms and not in relation

Hemendra Ranchooddas Merchant, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 809/MUM/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 5 of the I.T. Act are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 13.2 On perusal of the above table of sundry creditors, we find that all those sundry creditors are in respect of partnership firms and not in relation

Hemendra Ranchooddas Merchant, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 808/MUM/2022[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 5 of the I.T. Act are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 13.2 On perusal of the above table of sundry creditors, we find that all those sundry creditors are in respect of partnership firms and not in relation

Hemendra Ranchooddas Merchant, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Cen-Circle 6(2). Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 807/MUM/2022[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 5 of the I.T. Act are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 13.2 On perusal of the above table of sundry creditors, we find that all those sundry creditors are in respect of partnership firms and not in relation

Rameshkumar Jawanmalji Sakaria, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2492/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2010-2011
For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Megha Bhargav
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Assessment Order, dated 10.02.2016, is also vague as it states that “Proceeding under 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) are separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, leading to concealment of income chargeable to tax‟. 8. In view of the above, Ground No. 1 is allowed following the Full Bench

Ramaniklal Sivji Savla, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals) NFAC, Mumbai

ITA 1527/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Chandekar, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

penalty of Rs.5,64,464/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act @ 100% of the amount sought to be evaded by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has confirmed the penalty levied ... point of time Revenue Authorities have reached the specific conclusion that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income rather made the addition on the basis of information received from Sales Tax Department without conducting any independent enquiry as to the alleged bogus

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Nadiadwala Entertainment & Technologies Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5663/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Circle-16(1), M/S Nadiadwala Entertainment Room No. 439, 4Th Floor & Technologies Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Barkat, Plot No. 20, Gulmohar M.K. Road, Cross Road, No. 5, Jvpd Mumbai-400020. Scheme, Juhu Scheme, Vile Parle-West, Mumbai-400049. Pan No. Aaccn 0187 E Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Anant A. Pai, AR
Section 143(1)

Income-tax Act, 1261 is initiated separately tax Act, 1261 is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate pa for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” ” 7.1 On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has characterized the loss On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has characterized the loss On further appeal

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. JCIT, Central Range-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 6140/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta
Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Income Tax Act. Penalty proceedings is initiated u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Tax Act for furnishing inacc 38. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in e have heard rival submission

M/S. Praxair India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 199/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92C

facts and circumstance of the case by initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Now we reproduce the grounds of appeal in IT(TP)A No.199/Bang/2021 as under: Ay 2015-16: “The grounds hereinafter taken by the Appellant ... facts and circumstance of the case by initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. IT(TP)A No.3336/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.199/Bang/2021 M/s. Praxier India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 14 of 62 4. Ground Nos.1

M/S Praxair India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 3336/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92C

facts and circumstance of the case by initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Now we reproduce the grounds of appeal in IT(TP)A No.199/Bang/2021 as under: Ay 2015-16: “The grounds hereinafter taken by the Appellant ... facts and circumstance of the case by initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. IT(TP)A No.3336/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.199/Bang/2021 M/s. Praxier India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 14 of 62 4. Ground Nos.1