AMAN GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee had not concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars, as the subsidies were offered for taxation in the subsequent assessment year when conditions were met. Furthermore, the assessee had incurred losses in both assessment years, resulting in no tax liability.
What were the facts?
The assessee received subsidies from the Rajasthan State Government and credited them to the Capital Reserve Account instead of the Profit and Loss account. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the assessee has incurred losses and offered income in a subsequent year, and whether not filing an appeal against the assessment order implies intent to defraud.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.
- Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT86 citing168 ITR 705 · 1987 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAINvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 402/JP/2022
PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals),
National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 09.09.2022 for the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, has erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 7,81,660/-, without considering the fact that income ass
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.
- Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Shreehari Associates Private Limited…Pune26 Nov 2024Allowed
Also relies on Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the surrender of income was not voluntary but made under compulsion due to the search and doubt over the genuineness of expenditure. The presumption of concealment under Explanation to Section 271(...
- Amit Bansal, Haryana vs ACIT Central Circle-16, DelhiDelhi26 Jun 2024Allowed
Also relies on Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the penalty could not be levied as no incriminating material was found during the search relating to the additional income declared. The disclosure was considered voluntary in the context of the as...
- Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road AjmerJaipur9 Feb 2024Allowed
Also relies on Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal held that a disclosure made during assessment proceedings, even if not in the original return, can be considered a voluntary disclosure. Following the Gujarat High Court's decision, such disclosures do not a...
- Shri Vithalbhai Kadvabhai Korat, Surat vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3)(1), SuratSurat31 May 2023Allowed
Also relies on Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal held that no penalty is leviable on additions based on estimation, as it is settled law. Furthermore, since the assessee voluntarily offered the interest expenditure for taxation, penalty was not warranted o...
- Mohite and Mohite (Engineers and… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…Pune22 Dec 2022Allowed
Also relies on Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal held that since the entire information regarding the sale of the helicopter was available in the return of income, the error was bona fide and inadvertent. Therefore, the assessee could not be held guilty of...
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
