RAMCHANDRAUDAYSINGHJADHAVRAO,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had paid sufficient advance tax and TDS, and the due date for filing the return had not expired at the time of the survey, it could not be said that the assessee would not have disclosed the income had the survey not occurred. The returned income was also accepted without variation.
What were the facts?
The assessee converted inherited land from a capital asset to stock-in-trade in FY 2010-11. This conversion was disclosed during a survey action in FY 2016-17, and the income was offered in the return filed subsequently. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied for concealment of income when the income was voluntarily disclosed before the due date of filing the return and sufficient advance tax was paid.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show listHide 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.
- Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT443 citing358 ITR 593 · 2013 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals149 citing335 ITR 259 · 2011 · HC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Punjab Tyres48 citing92 Taxmann.com 229 · 1986 · HC
- Grass Field & Resorts P Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax4 citing388 ITR 395 · 2016 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
PER R. K. PANDA, VP :
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.05.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune - 11 relating to assessment year 2016-17. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and running a proprietary firm under the name and style of M/s. JKG Developers which is engaged in the business of construction and development of land and construction of residential and commercial projects. He filed his return of income on 31.01.2017 declaring total income of Rs.12,37,36,920/-. The same was processed u/sec.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). In this case a survey action u/sec.133A of the Act was conducted on 14.09
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.
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.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Anatek Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer -14(1)(1), MumbaiMumbai30 Apr 2025Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Punjab Tyres and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 was invalid as it did not strike out the irrelevant limb (concealment or inaccurate particulars), violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the...
- Beta Maschinenfabrik (P) Ltd., Noida vs DCIT, Circle- 1, NoidaDelhi19 Jun 2018Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Punjab Tyres and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investors. The surrender of Rs. 10 lakhs was made on the AO's suggestio...
- Shri Yash Paul Malhotra, Jalandhar vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1…Amritsar13 Aug 2025Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that since the assessee offered the additional income in the return and paid taxes, and the returned income was accepted with only a minor addition, there was no concealment of income. Therefore, the pe...
- Sabitha Repalle, Vikrarabad vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, VikrarabadHyderabad10 Feb 2022Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that a voluntary disclosure of income made during a survey, without any incriminating material or discrepancies being unearthed by the revenue authorities, does not constitute concealment of income. The...
- Sabitha Repalle, Vikarabad vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, VikrarabadHyderabad10 Feb 2022Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that a voluntary disclosure of income during a survey, without any incriminating material or discrepancies found by the revenue authorities, does not constitute concealment of income. Therefore, the pen...
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
