← All Phrases

“Section 271(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 271Section 271(1)5,698 judgments

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

Leading authorities on Section 271(1)

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)

Air France, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1004/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

services received from IATP members and ground No. 18 relates to interest income. Ground No. 19 is regarding initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c)/271A & 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) and ground No. 20 pertains to levy of interest under section ... Respectfully following the decision (supra) the Ld. Assessing Officer is directed to delete the impugned addition. 9. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c)/271A & 271B (ground No. 19) being pre-mature does not require adjudication at this stage. 10. Levy of interest under section

Unitech Reality Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-27(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2911/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.2911/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 M/S. Unitech Realty Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Basement , 6, Circle - 27(1), Community Centre, Saket New Delhi Delhi-110017 New Delhi Pan : Aaacr4290E (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

order passed by the Ld. AO levying penalty is bad in alw and liable to be set aside as the notice issued under section 271(1)(c) was ambiguous as it did nto specify the offence alleged to be committed. The order levying penalty is not sustainable ... Karn.), allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act was bad in law, as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty proceedings

Shri Umakant Sharma, Jhabua vs. The JCIT, Ratlam

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 366/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

regarding penalty proceeding under Section 271E of the Act, though in that order the Assessing Officer wanted penalty proceeding to be initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, Insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concemed, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could

Shri Umakant Sharma, Jhabua vs. The JCIT, Ratlam

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 365/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

regarding penalty proceeding under Section 271E of the Act, though in that order the Assessing Officer wanted penalty proceeding to be initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, Insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concemed, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could

Shri Umakant Sharma, Jhabua vs. The JCIT, Ratlam

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 364/IND/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

regarding penalty proceeding under Section 271E of the Act, though in that order the Assessing Officer wanted penalty proceeding to be initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, Insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concemed, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could

DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Ajmer vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 210/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 210/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer cuke Vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma F-108, Industrial Area, Makhupura Parbatpura, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ASWPS 3791 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. No. 04/JP/2023 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 210/JP/2023) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 Yashwant Kumar Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. James Kurian (CIT) &
Section 139(1)Section 271ASection 274

under section 271 AAB. It seems that the A.O had very casually used the Performa used for issuing notice before levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the Section 271AAB ... 1) of the Act as 10% to 30% or more as against the discretion given to the AO as per the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act where the AO has the discretion to levy the penalty from 100% to 300% of the tax sought

Balkrishna Dhondiram Thorwat, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-27(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1350/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Abhishek Samdani , Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(d)

filing its return of income in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, however, initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(d) of the Act for non-compliance of the statutory notices dated 11.11.2021 and 27.12.2021. 5. Before the AO in the penalty proceedings though ... malice can be attributed until and unless the special circumstances exists, which are not appearing in this case. 7.1 In the provisions of section 271(1)(b) of the Act discretion has been vested with the authority to direct the Assessee to pay by way of penalty

Neel Controls, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1332/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Parag Modi, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Ld
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

purchases under section 69C of the Act and added to the total income of the Assessee and simultaneously also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on dated 20.03.2014 and ultimately vide penalty order dated 23.03.2018 held that the Assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income ... particulars of income. The AO consequently levied the penalty of Rs. 1,19,940/- @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The Ld. Commissioner by impugned order decided the appeal of the Assessee as ex-parte and upheld the imposition

Balkrishna Dhondiram Thorwat, Thane vs. ITO, Ward-27(2)(1), Navi Mumbai

In the result both the appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1093/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Abhishek Samdani , Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(d)

filing its return of income in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, however, initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(d) of the Act for non-compliance of the statutory notices dated 11.11.2021 and 27.12.2021. 5. Before the AO in the penalty proceedings though ... malice can be attributed until and unless the special circumstances exists, which are not appearing in this case. 7.1 In the provisions of section 271(1)(b) of the Act discretion has been vested with the authority to direct the Assessee to pay by way of penalty

Shri Vijesh Samule, Bhopal vs. The ITO 3 (1), Bhopal

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

ITA 64/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivijesh Samule Ito 3(1) 108, Vaaishali Nagar Kotra Bhopal Vs. Sultanabad Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Amips 7377 N Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.07.2023

Section 144Section 147Section 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 274

entire facts, it is observed that the present appeal suffers with serious deficiency, being appeal filed against notice u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(b) of the Act, which is not an Order in accordance with Section 246A of the Act. Also, the Grounds of appeal raised and Statement

Milan Shantilal Mehta, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2 (5), Thane

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1199/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri G.P. MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

assessment year 2010-11, which in turn, arose from the penalty order dated 24/05/2018, passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- Milan Shantilal Mehta ITA no.1199/Mum./2023 “1. Penalty order passed ... alternative ground on or before hearing of appeal.” 3. The only grievance of the assessee is against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 4. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The brief facts

Inderjit Kaur Shah, Chndigarh vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2 ( 2), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 83/ASR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.83/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250oSection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Ameriprise India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1198/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kamal Sawhney Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

ground shall not be pressed where the application is allowed by the learned AO 5. Ground No. 5- Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) 5.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section

Venkata Rama Satyanarayana Varma Vegesna, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 165/VIZ/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.165/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Venkata Rama Satyanarayana Varma Vs. National E-Assesment Centre, Vegesna Delhi 10-50-2, Lazarus Bangalow (Dcit/Acit Waltair Main Road Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam) [Pan : Aagts9608E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shrin C.M.Ravi Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2023 : आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1043814974(1) Dated 12.07.2022, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) Dated 14.02.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12. 2

For Appellant: Shrin C.M.Ravi Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)

company or received by the Director, but is assumed to be dividend for the purpose of taxation under Income Tax Act. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 prescribes two faults or omissions which exposes the assessee to concealment penalty. These are concealment of particulars of income ... assessee further contended that deeming fiction provided under the provisions of section 2(22)(e) cannot be extended to the provisions of section 271(1)(c) to hold that the assessce has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, despite details of loan has been disclosed in the balance-sheet filed

Shri Santosh Kumar Agarwala, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 190/CTK/2023[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack13 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.189 & 190/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Santosh Kumar Santosh Kumar Agarwala, Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-2(1), Sector-6, Cda, Cuttack 6, Cda, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaspa 3698Q (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth Mohit Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/07 7/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/0 /07/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Mohit ShethFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 148

before levy of penalty. The entire penalty proceedings are vitiated and are liable to quashed. The penalty provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act are attracted were the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is a well

Shri Santosh Kumar Agarwala, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 189/CTK/2023[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack13 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.189 & 190/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Santosh Kumar Santosh Kumar Agarwala, Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-2(1), Sector-6, Cda, Cuttack 6, Cda, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaspa 3698Q (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth Mohit Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/07 7/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/0 /07/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Mohit ShethFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 148

before levy of penalty. The entire penalty proceedings are vitiated and are liable to quashed. The penalty provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act are attracted were the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is a well

The Income-Tax Officer -41(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mr Jaiprakash Dhirajlal Barbhaya, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 475/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Bleincome Tax Officer – 41(2)(2) V. Jaiprakash Dhirajlal Barbhaya 301, Mahavir Apartment Room No. 636, 6Th Floor Nahur Road, Sarvodaya Nagar Kautilya Bhavan Mumbai – 400080 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Agppb9599J (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

stating that the assessee has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and concealed its income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 1 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions challenging the penalty order passed ... under: - “Question No.1: If the assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or the other, or both grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), does a mere defect in the notice—not striking off the irrelevant matter—vitiate the penalty proceedings? 181. It does. The primary burden

Mr Bimal H. Kiri, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Circle 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1337/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

penalty order passed by the learned Income Tax Officer- 16(3)(4), Mumbai (the learned Assessing Officer) for A.Y. 2011-12 under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act dated 26th September, 2014, levying the penalty of ₹60,000/- was confirmed. 02. The fact of the case shows that ... March, 2014, determining the total income of the assessee at ₹41,96,121/-. The learned Assessing Officer further initiated the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for non appearance on six different occasions. The show cause notice under Section 274 of the Act was also

Mr Bimal H. Kiri, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Circle 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1336/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

penalty order passed by the learned Income Tax Officer- 16(3)(4), Mumbai (the learned Assessing Officer) for A.Y. 2011-12 under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act dated 26th September, 2014, levying the penalty of ₹60,000/- was confirmed. 02. The fact of the case shows that ... March, 2014, determining the total income of the assessee at ₹41,96,121/-. The learned Assessing Officer further initiated the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for non appearance on six different occasions. The show cause notice under Section 274 of the Act was also

Jagani Vinodrai Gopaldas (HUF), Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-1 (2) (4), Rajkot

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

ITA 59/RJT/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot12 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 59/Rjt/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Jagani Vinodrai Gopaldas Huf, Income-Tax Officer, 62 – Suraj Appartment, Vs. Ward-1(2)(4), No.1 Shroff Road, Rajkot. Opp. Church, Nfac, Delhi Rajkot-360001. Pan: Aaahj9710N

For Appellant: Shri R.D Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.L Solanki, Sr. D.R
Section 10(38)Section 271(1)(c)

claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the revenue then in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted by Assessing ... Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. 7.3 In view of the above, the claim made by the assessee not admitted by the AO cannot be termed as concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate