← All Phrases

“Section 271(1)(c)”

Section References (mined)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)8,984 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 271(1)(c) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c)

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.

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT
328 ITR 81 · 2010 · High Court
1,183
citing judgments

Rule 8D, for computing disallowance under Section 14A for expenses related to exempt income, applies from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards; for prior years, a reasonable disallowance must be made. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned.

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.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.
331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court
694
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

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.

Judgments citing Section 271(1)(c)

Shri Vithalbhai Kadvabhai Korat, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 205/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.205/Srt/2023 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Vithalbhai Kadvabhai Korat Income Tax Officer, Ward- 55,V.T. Nagar, Near Sarthana 3(3)(1), Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs Jakatnaka, Varachha, Majura Gate, Surat-395006 Surat-395001 Pan No: Adkpk 2173 K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

which in turn arises out against the penalty levied by Assessing Officer/ Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5) Surat, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 24.06.2019. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1 ... offered before assessment proceedings. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, I direct the Assessing Officer to delete the entire penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. I order accordingly. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 9. In the result

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

bIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.75/Mum/2023

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

1 ITA 727/Mum/2023 Shri Arun I Keshwani IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE PAVAN KUMAR

Shri Manoj N. Tekriwal, Mumbai vs. ITO NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 490/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri G. P. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. CIT)
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT

Shilpa Gautam, Mumbai vs. ITO, (Int Tx), Ward-2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 409/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Rajesh AthwaleFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 56(2)(Vii)Section 56(2)(vii)

charging interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act. 5. The learned ITO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Sections 271(1)(c) and 27F of the Income tax Act.” All the above grounds raised by the Appellant are directed against the addition

Pearl Biofuel P Ltd., Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-5(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 225/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrypearl Biofuel Pvt. Ltd. 601, 6Th Floor, Western Palace, Link Road, Mumbai-400092. Pan: Aaagcp4845H ...... Appellant

For Appellant: Ms. Mona Kakwana, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ram Prakash Rastogi
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69B

c. Addition u/s. 69B Rs. 7,49,95,752/- and consequently initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and vide penalty order dated 30.09.2016 imposed the penalty

Kl Crescent Infrastructure Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-15(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 172/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blekl Crescent Infrastructure Pvt Ltd V. Ito 15(2)(1) A-390/39, Ttc Industrial Zone Aayakar Bhavan Midc, Mahape, Post Ghansoli Mumbai- 400020 Navi Mumbai- 400701 Pan: Aadck3832C (Appellant) (Respondent) Kl Crescent Infrastructure Pvt Ltd V. Acit 15(2)(2) A-390/39, Ttc Industrial Zone Aayakar Bhavan Midc, Mahape, Post Ghansoli Mumbai- 400020 Navi Mumbai- 400701 Pan: Aadck3832C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

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

submitted that the notice dated 31/05/2018 issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is defective, as both the limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are mentioned therein. The Assessing Officer has not struck off the irrelevant clause in the said notice. To support ... 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 271(1)(c) of the Act are invoked i.e. “ concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income”. Both the limbs are mentioned with conjunction

Jt.CIT(OSD)(I/C) Circle.27(1), Mumbai vs. Late Gordhandas S. Goradia L/H Mahesh G. Goradia, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection

ITA 107/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Jt. Cit(Osd)(I/C) Late Gordhandas S. Goradia Room No. 408, 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, L/H Mahesh G. Goradia Vashi Railway Station Complex, Vs. 149-156-21 Garodia Shopping Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 73 Centre, Garodia Nagar, Ghatkopar, Mumbai-400 077 Pan/Gir No. Aacpg 2914 R (Revenue) : (Assessee)

For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c) of the Act in the notice issued to the assessee. The assessee has also challenged the ground that under section 271(1)(c) of the Act penalty was levied on a debatable issue which does not attract levying of penalty. As the ground no. 1 raised

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)

P a g e | 1 Mr. Prahlad G. Prajapati Vs. The ITO-19(2)(5) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

The DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Icici Bank Ltd. ( in Respect of M/S. Itc Classic Finanace Ltd. Merged With Icici Ban Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4223/MUM/2008[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 1996-1997

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 10(15)(v)Section 10(33)Section 115Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Gulab Impex Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 2538/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2015-16 Gulab Impex Enterprises Pvt. Versus Acit, Circle 10(2), Ltd., New Delhi. 43, Babar Road, Bemgali Market, New Delhi Pan: Aaacg1056B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pramod Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, PRESIDENT AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY

Uttaranchal Estates P.Ltd, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Circle-27(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 9489/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri M. Baranwal, Anuj Garg
Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

234A and 234B of the Act. 12. That on facts and in laws, the Ld. AO erred in initiating the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income.” 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the assessment order

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

ITA 1952/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 32

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH.ANUBHAV SHARMA

DCIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1750/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 32

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH.ANUBHAV SHARMA

Shri Laxman Bhai Dahya Bhai Patel, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 29/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 29/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Laxman Bhai Dahya Bhai Patel Padmanabhpur, Patel Complex, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan : Aafl8291J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bikram Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 194CSection 40

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH

ACIT (International Taxation), Circle-1(3)(1), New Delhi vs. Godaddy.Com Llc, Usa

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2013-14 and

ITA 9406/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Melhotra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144C(13)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

Delhi (“CIT(A)”) whereby he deleted the penalty of Rs. 1,97,31,721/- and Rs. 4,95,98,366/- imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) for Assessment Years (“AYs”) 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. Since the common issue is involved ... respectively under section 144C(13) r.w.s.143(3) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under ITA Nos. 9405 & 9406/ Del/19 section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income and filing of inaccurate particulars thereof. 3.1 Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal which vide

ACIT (International Taxation), Circle-1(3)(1), New Delhi vs. Godaddy.Com Llc, Usa

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2013-14 and

ITA 9405/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Melhotra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144C(13)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

Delhi (“CIT(A)”) whereby he deleted the penalty of Rs. 1,97,31,721/- and Rs. 4,95,98,366/- imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) for Assessment Years (“AYs”) 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. Since the common issue is involved ... respectively under section 144C(13) r.w.s.143(3) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under ITA Nos. 9405 & 9406/ Del/19 section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income and filing of inaccurate particulars thereof. 3.1 Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal which vide

Sh. Arashpreet Singh. S/O.Late.Sh. Gurmail Singh, Muktsar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax .Circle-II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 64/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the penalty of Rs.54,61,000/- imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That the appellant craves to add, amend or alter any ground of appeal before ... snow about the detection of concealment by the department and that it is not a case of bona fide voluntary disclosure, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that in every case mere surrender of income will foreclose any action of concealment

Sh. Arashpreet Singh S/O. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh, Muktsar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 63/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the penalty of Rs.54,61,000/- imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That the appellant craves to add, amend or alter any ground of appeal before ... snow about the detection of concealment by the department and that it is not a case of bona fide voluntary disclosure, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that in every case mere surrender of income will foreclose any action of concealment