120 ITR 001, (SC) 7. B.N. Sharma Vs. CIT, 226 ITR 442, (SC) 8. Engineering Impex (P) Ltd. v. DD Sharma

195 ITR 1Supreme Court of India1992#5702 most cited

What is 120 ITR 001, (SC) 7. B.N. Sharma Vs. CIT, 226 ITR 442, (SC) 8. Engineering Impex (P) Ltd. v. DD Sharma authority for?

A penalty under section 271(1)(c) is always leviable with reference to the original return of income and can also be levied with reference to concealment found in original assessment proceedings, even if reassessment proceedings are initiated.

20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT vs. Onkar Saran and Sons · 195 ITR 1 · 1992 · SC · penalty u/s 271(1)(c) · concealment of income · original return · reassessment proceeding · section 148

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)Section 273Section 271(1) Explanation 3

Issues it is cited on

section 273concealment of incomeservice of noticelevy of penaltysection 271(1)section 144bsalarysection 139(1)section 271section 271(1)(c)section 139section 27

Judgments citing 120 ITR 001, (SC) 7. B.N. Sharma Vs. CIT, 226 ITR 442, (SC) 8. Engineering Impex (P) Ltd. v. DD Sharma

VALSAN CHIYYABATH NARAYANAN,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 82/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273

…h reference to the original return of income and the penalty could also be levied with reference to concealment in original assessment proceedings. This position was reiterated again by the 3 judges judgement in the case of CIT vs. Onkar Saran and Sons [1992] 195 ITR 1. In the light of his u/s. 148 of the Act in reassessment proceeding. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity, illegality and perversity in the order passed by the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 10. Since identical issued are involved in all other appeals, the above findings are mutatis mutandis apply to all these…

VALSAN CHIYYABATH NARAYANAN,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 81/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273

…h reference to the original return of income and the penalty could also be levied with reference to concealment in original assessment proceedings. This position was reiterated again by the 3 judges judgement in the case of CIT vs. Onkar Saran and Sons [1992] 195 ITR 1. In the light of his u/s. 148 of the Act in reassessment proceeding. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity, illegality and perversity in the order passed by the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 10. Since identical issued are involved in all other appeals, the above findings are mutatis mutandis apply to all these…

VALSAN CHIYYABATH NARAYANAN,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 80/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273

…h reference to the original return of income and the penalty could also be levied with reference to concealment in original assessment proceedings. This position was reiterated again by the 3 judges judgement in the case of CIT vs. Onkar Saran and Sons [1992] 195 ITR 1. In the light of his u/s. 148 of the Act in reassessment proceeding. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity, illegality and perversity in the order passed by the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 10. Since identical issued are involved in all other appeals, the above findings are mutatis mutandis apply to all these…

VALSAN CHIYYABATH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 28/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273

…h reference to the original return of income and the penalty could also be levied with reference to concealment in original assessment proceedings. This position was reiterated again by the 3 judges judgement in the case of CIT vs. Onkar Saran and Sons [1992] 195 ITR 1. In the light of his u/s. 148 of the Act in reassessment proceeding. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity, illegality and perversity in the order passed by the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 10. Since identical issued are involved in all other appeals, the above findings are mutatis mutandis apply to all these…

G. B. BUILDERS, ,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT-CPC(TDS),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 626/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Due Date On 24-11-2014, But Inadvertently Committed An Error Therein Of Depositing This Tds Using Pan Of The Seller Instead Of Pan Of The Appellant (As The Buyer)

For Appellant: Shri Hirak Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D.R
Section 194Section 194ISection 200Section 200ASection 234E

…on 16-12-2015 would not render enactment in section 200A (introduced w.e.f. 1-6-2015) to apply retrospectively to TDS deposited on 25-11-2014 and cannot be invoked to levy considerable punitive liability of Rs. 74,600. He relied on the decision of Omkar Saran 195 ITR 1(SC) where it has been a settled ratio that the law applicable would be on the date on which the return of income is filed and not on the date on which return was revised or the penalty order is passed. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that substantive provisions of section 194-IA have been fully complied with during November, 2014 i.e. before…

GUNTI ASHWIN KUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2365/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1&2 2361 & 2009-10 Gunti Prasad, Income-tax & 2362/H/2018 Hyderabad. Officer, 2011-12 PAN – AFDPG Ward – 9(2), 3013M Hyderabad 3 2360/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Prasad -do- (HUF), Hyderabad. PAN – AAEHG 1787 Q 4 2363/H/2018 Gunti Anil -do- 2009-10 Kumar, Hyd. PAN-ADEPG 7609Q 5 2364/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Naveen -do- Kumar, Hyd. PAN-AHLPG 6874L 6 2365/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Ashwin -do- Kumar, Hyd. PAN-ADEPG 7603E Asse…

GUNTI NAVEEN KUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2364/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1&2 2361 & 2009-10 Gunti Prasad, Income-tax & 2362/H/2018 Hyderabad. Officer, 2011-12 PAN – AFDPG Ward – 9(2), 3013M Hyderabad 3 2360/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Prasad -do- (HUF), Hyderabad. PAN – AAEHG 1787 Q 4 2363/H/2018 Gunti Anil -do- 2009-10 Kumar, Hyd. PAN-ADEPG 7609Q 5 2364/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Naveen -do- Kumar, Hyd. PAN-AHLPG 6874L 6 2365/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Ashwin -do- Kumar, Hyd. PAN-ADEPG 7603E Asse…

GUNTI ANIL KUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2363/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1&2 2361 & 2009-10 Gunti Prasad, Income-tax & 2362/H/2018 Hyderabad. Officer, 2011-12 PAN – AFDPG Ward – 9(2), 3013M Hyderabad 3 2360/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Prasad -do- (HUF), Hyderabad. PAN – AAEHG 1787 Q 4 2363/H/2018 Gunti Anil -do- 2009-10 Kumar, Hyd. PAN-ADEPG 7609Q 5 2364/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Naveen -do- Kumar, Hyd. PAN-AHLPG 6874L 6 2365/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Ashwin -do- Kumar, Hyd. PAN-ADEPG 7603E Asse…

GUNTI PRASAD,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2362/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1&2 2361 & 2009-10 Gunti Prasad, Income-tax & 2362/H/2018 Hyderabad. Officer, 2011-12 PAN – AFDPG Ward – 9(2), 3013M Hyderabad 3 2360/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Prasad -do- (HUF), Hyderabad. PAN – AAEHG 1787 Q 4 2363/H/2018 Gunti Anil -do- 2009-10 Kumar, Hyd. PAN-ADEPG 7609Q 5 2364/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Naveen -do- Kumar, Hyd. PAN-AHLPG 6874L 6 2365/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Ashwin -do- Kumar, Hyd. PAN-ADEPG 7603E Asse…

GUNTI PRASAD ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2361/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1&2 2361 & 2009-10 Gunti Prasad, Income-tax & 2362/H/2018 Hyderabad. Officer, 2011-12 PAN – AFDPG Ward – 9(2), 3013M Hyderabad 3 2360/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Prasad -do- (HUF), Hyderabad. PAN – AAEHG 1787 Q 4 2363/H/2018 Gunti Anil -do- 2009-10 Kumar, Hyd. PAN-ADEPG 7609Q 5 2364/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Naveen -do- Kumar, Hyd. PAN-AHLPG 6874L 6 2365/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Ashwin -do- Kumar, Hyd. PAN-ADEPG 7603E Asse…

GUNTI PRASAD (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2360/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1&2 2361 & 2009-10 Gunti Prasad, Income-tax & 2362/H/2018 Hyderabad. Officer, 2011-12 PAN – AFDPG Ward – 9(2), 3013M Hyderabad 3 2360/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Prasad -do- (HUF), Hyderabad. PAN – AAEHG 1787 Q 4 2363/H/2018 Gunti Anil -do- 2009-10 Kumar, Hyd. PAN-ADEPG 7609Q 5 2364/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Naveen -do- Kumar, Hyd. PAN-AHLPG 6874L 6 2365/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Ashwin -do- Kumar, Hyd. PAN-ADEPG 7603E Asse…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR vs. MADHYA PRADESH POWER GENERATING CO. LTD., JABALPUR

In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 251/JAB/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur23 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Halder, DR
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…issue in the matter, becomes operative. 4.2 It is well-settled that the law applicable for the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is that as obtaining on the date of filing the original return, being 29.9.2009 in the instant case (Onkar Saran & Sons v. CIT [1992] 195 ITR 1 (SC); ITO v. Mewalal Dwarka Prasad [1989] 176 ITR 529 (SC)), so that the issue of maintainability of penalty would be governed by the substituted Explanation 4, interpretation of which, considering the acceptance by the Revenue of the view expressed in Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. (supra) and, in fact, instructing its' officers accordingly, which is…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, PUNE vs. M/S. GOKHALE SABADE ASSOCIATES,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 867/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri C.V. DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…led position of law that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable with reference to concealment in the return of income. Reference can be made to the following decisions: 5 N.A. Malbary & Bros. Vs. CIT, 51 ITR 295 (SC) (b) CIT Vs. Onkar Saran & Sons. 195 ITR 1 (SC) In the absence of any variation between returned income and assessed income, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied. Hence, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced i…

DCIT - (LTU) - 1 , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6267/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Yadav &For Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh (CIT-DR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. ITA / CO No. A.Y Appellant Respondent No. 1 6267/Mum/2018 2009-10 DCIT – (LTU) -1 Reliance Industries World Trade Centre, Ltd, 3rd Floor, Maker Centre No -1, 2 6268/Mum/2018 2008-09 29th Floor, Cufee Chamber IV, Parade, Mumbai – Nariman point, 400 005. Mumbai – 400 021. 3 6269/Mum/2018 2007-08 4 CO.243/Mum/2019 2007-08 Reliance Industries DCIT – (LTU) -1 (In ITA No. Ltd, World Trade 3rd Floor, Maker 6269/Mum/2018) Centre, 5 CO.244/Mum/2019 2008-09 Chamber IV, Centre No -…

SH. SUBASH CHANDER,UDHAMPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, UDHAMPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 143/ASR/2017[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Mar 2019AY 1993-94

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No.142 & 143/Asr/2017 Assessment Years: 1992-93 & 1993-94

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Arora (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148(1)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.142 & 143/Asr/2017 Assessment Years: 1992-93 & 1993-94 Subash Chander, vs. Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/s. Subash Trunk Udhampur. Factory Lambi Gali, Udhampur. [PAN: AFUPC 7311M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Gaurav Arora (C.A.) Respondent by: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.) Date of Hearing: 18.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 29.03.2019 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is a set of two Appeals by the Assessee, i.e., for two consecutive years, being assessment years (AYs.)1992-93 &…

SH. SUBASH CHANDER,UDHAMPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, UDHAMPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 142/ASR/2017[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Mar 2019AY 1992-93

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No.142 & 143/Asr/2017 Assessment Years: 1992-93 & 1993-94

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Arora (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148(1)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.142 & 143/Asr/2017 Assessment Years: 1992-93 & 1993-94 Subash Chander, vs. Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/s. Subash Trunk Udhampur. Factory Lambi Gali, Udhampur. [PAN: AFUPC 7311M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Gaurav Arora (C.A.) Respondent by: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.) Date of Hearing: 18.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 29.03.2019 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is a set of two Appeals by the Assessee, i.e., for two consecutive years, being assessment years (AYs.)1992-93 &…

LORD INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4015/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanlord India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of A/401-404,215 – Atrium, Income –Tax, Circle-3(2), Andheri Kurla Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Andheri (East) Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400093 Pan: Aaacu 0785H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. M.P. Lohia - ARFor Respondent: Ms. Harkamal Sahi(Sr DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271Section 271ASection 273BSection 274Section 92D(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Lord India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner of A/401-404,215 – Atrium, Income –tax, Circle-3(2), Andheri Kurla Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Andheri (East) Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400093 PAN: AAACU 0785H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. M.P. Lohia - AR Revenue by : Ms. Harkamal Sahi(Sr DR) Date of hearing 25.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement 19.09.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. The instant appeal by…

ACIT, KOTA vs. HARBANS LAL SETHI, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 455/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

…either conceal the 4 Shri Harbans Lal Sethi, Kota. particulars of income or furnish inaccurate particulars of income. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions :- Brij Mohan vs. CIT 120 ITR 1 (SC) CIT vs. Onkar Saran & Sons, 195 ITR 1 (SC) B.N. Sharma vs. CIT 226 ITR 442 (SC) 4. Having considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record, we note that if the assessee has not declared the surrendered income in the return of income and also not filing revised return of income, then the case of the assessee would certainly fall in the category of furnishing…

MODI RUBBER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 17(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 2559/DEL/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.R. Mishra, Senior DR
Section 143Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…h legal stand adopted by assessee, it will not be enough reason to hold that assessee is guilty of concealment of income or of furnishing inaccurate details – Held, yes” 15 ITA No.2559/Del./2018 Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Onkar Saran & Sons – 21. (1992) 195 ITR 1 (SC) also decided identical issue in favour of the assessee as under :- “Penalty – For concealment of income – Assessment years 1961- 62 and 1962-63 – Whether even in a case where a return filed under section 148 involved an element of concealment, law applicable for imposition of penalty would be law as in force at time of original return filed f…

R.VASUKI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 899/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mrs. Veni Raj, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 03.08.2017
Section 131Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…er, upon filing her original return by the assessee on 30.08.2010, inasmuch as it is the omission to disclose the impugned sum, since admitted as an investment in the company, that is relevant and needs to be explained (refer: CIT v. Onkar Saran & Sons [1992] 195 ITR 1 (SC). This default or omission has not been explained at any stage. Merely stating of it being an attempt to buy peace or to avoid litigation would be of no moment; the statute not recognizing such defences, as also clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mak Data v. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC), from which we may extract a few lines, as under: The…

120 ITR 001, (SC) 7. B.N. Sharma Vs. CIT, 226 ITR 442, (SC) 8. Engineering Impex (P) Ltd. v. DD Sharma (195 ITR 1) — Cited in 20 Judgments | BharatTax