M/S. K.P. MADHUSUDHANAN vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN, KERALA

C.A. No.-006465-006465 - 2000Supreme Court21 August 20014 pages
For Respondent: SUSHMA SURI
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that a specific mention of the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) in the penalty notice is not necessary, as the Explanation is an integral part of Section 271. The assessee is put on notice of the potential application of the Explanation when a notice under Section 271 is issued.

What were the facts?

The assessee firm initially returned an income of Rs. 6,76,890, which was later assessed at Rs. 7,90,170, including Rs. 93,000 as income from other sources. This addition was made because the assessee could not provide evidence for hand loans taken to cover expenses, and offered the amount as income to buy peace.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied without specifically mentioning the Explanation to the section in the notice, and whether an agreed addition to income for 'buying peace' automatically precludes penalty.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 199 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

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

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6465 of 2000 PETITIONER: M/S. K.P. MADHUSUDHANAN Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/08/2001 BENCH: S.P. Bharucha, Y..K. Sabharwal & Brijesh Kumar

JUDGMENT: Bharucha, J. The High Court answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue the following questions :

1.

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact, in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act?

2.

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact, in holding that this is an agreed assessment on the basis of which penalty is not leviable?

3.

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and facts, in holding that penalty cannot be levied as the assessing officer in the proposal under Section 271(1)(c) had not referred to Explanation (1B) to Section 271(1)(c)? The assessee is in appeal by special leave. For the assessment year 1986-87 the assessee, which is a partnership firm, filed a return of incom

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 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →