C I T JAIPUR vs. PUSHPENDRA SURANA

ITA/209/2012HC RajasthanRJHC02070552201221 August 2013Author: NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II,AJAY RASTOGI3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that both the CIT (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had considered the matter in detail. They arrived at the conclusion that the income declared by the assessee from the sale of agricultural land, disclosed in the revised return, was accepted by the Assessing Authority. Crucially, the appellate authorities found no material on record from which it could be inferred that the assessee had deliberately concealed income or provided inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified. The High Court found no substance in the Revenue's submissions and concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration under Section 260A. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Pushpendra Surana, filed an original return of income for Assessment Year 2004-05 on November 17, 2004. A notice for re-assessment under Section 148 was issued on July 16, 2007, and the assessee filed a revised return on August 13, 2007, which was accepted by the Assessing Authority. Subsequently, the Assessing Authority initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for alleged deliberate concealment, imposing a penalty of Rs. 15,41,732/-. The CIT (Appeals) deleted the penalty, holding that there was no material to infer deliberate concealment after the revised return was accepted. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT (Appeals)'s order. The Revenue has filed an appeal before the High Court under Section 260A.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the deletion of penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the Assessing Authority had initiated penalty proceedings for deliberate concealment, despite accepting the assessee's revised return of income? (Question of law) The Revenue contended that the ITAT's confirmation of the CIT (Appeals)'s order was unjustified. They argued that the scope of Section 271(1)(c) had not been properly appreciated by the lower authorities, and this raised a substantial question of law requiring consideration by the High Court. The Revenue's submission was that merely accepting the revised return did not negate the possibility of deliberate concealment warranting penalty. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the assessee's side.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 148,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 16 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

-1- CIT-I, Jaipur VS. Sh.Pushpendra Surana.

Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jaipur VS. Shri Pushpendra Surana. 21.08.2013. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II Mr.J.K.Singhi, Sr.Advocate assisted by Mr.Anuroop Singhi, for appellant/revenue. ***** Instant appeal has been filed by the Revenue u/S.260A of the Income Tax Act. As it reveals from the record, the assessee filed original return of income on 17.11.2004 for the Assessment Year 2004-

05.

However, at a later stage, a notice for re-assessment u/S.148 of the Act came to be issued to him on 16.07.2007 and the revised return of income was filed by the assessee on 13.08.2007 which was accepted by the Assessing Authority. However, a separate proceeding for imposition of penalty was initiated against the assessee by issuance of notice u/S.271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Authority considering it to be a case of deliberate concealment made by the assessee and after affording opportunity of hearing inflicted a penalty of Rs.15,41,732/- upon the assessee.

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →