236 ITR 977 (SC); Addl. CIT v. Jeevan Lal Shah

185 ITR 49Supreme Court of India1990#6888 most cited

What is 236 ITR 977 (SC); Addl. CIT v. Jeevan Lal Shah authority for?

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable if the assessee provides a plausible explanation supported by facts, as mere unsustainability of a claim does not attract penalty.

16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Addl. CIT v. Jeevan Lal Shah · 271(1)(c) · penalty · plausible explanation · reasonable cause · furnishing inaccurate particulars · concealment of income · section 273B · debatable issue

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

Issues it is cited on

section 274personsection 14indiainterest

Judgments citing 236 ITR 977 (SC); Addl. CIT v. Jeevan Lal Shah

DCIT, Circle 22(2), New Delhi vs. Sahil Vachani, Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2604/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

For Appellant: S/Shri Anuj Garg & Narpat Singh, Sr.DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Rohan Khare & Priyam
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…ection271(1)(c) of the Act read with explanation 1 thereto and the judicial pronouncements in the case of B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co. 157 CTR 556(SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. 152 ITR 529 (Mad.);Mussadilal Ram Bharose 165 ITR 14 (SC); K.R. Sadayappan 185 ITR 49 (SC); Jeevan Lal Sah 205 ITR 244 (SC) and K.P.Madhusudanan 251 ITR 99(SC), it is well established that whenever there is difference between the returned and assessed income, there is inference of concealment. The explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act raises a presumption that can be rebutted by the assessee with reference to facts of the c…

Rajesh Amarsinh Prajapati, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(2)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 94/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 120(3)(a)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 274

…dued and subordinate content:- 80 ITR 57(Ker.) 156 ITR 323 (SC) 179 ITR 580 (Cal.) 175 ITR 384 (Ail) 200 ITR 697 (Bom.) 208 ITR 649 (SC)” Mere unsubstantiated explanation would not absolve assesses, burden is on him to prove has been held 208 ITR 668 (Bom.) & 185 ITR 49 (SC). In the circumstances, I agree with the AO that the appellant has failed to explain the credit entries of Rs.54,52,835/- appearing the bank accounts. The cash deposited has remained unexplained. Therefore, the addition made u/s.68 by the AO is hereby confirmed. Ground No.3 of appeal is dismissed. 5. In the result appeal is dismissed.” 5. The…

Nova Promoters and Finlease Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3173/DEL/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Ms.Madhumita Roynova Promoters & Vs. Ito, Ward 13(3) Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Ito Building, I.P. Estate 7, Kapil Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi – 34

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anshul
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…d. This position has been accepted by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Vishwakarma Industries v. CIT [1982] 135 ITR 652, and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose [1987] 165 ITR 14, CIT v. K.R. Sadayappan [1990] 185 ITR 49 and Addl. CIT v. Jeevan Lal Sah [1994] 205 ITR 244, though the penalty proceedings continue to be penal proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that it is now no longer necessary that the department must go further and establish that there was conscious concealment of particulars of income or a deliberate failure to furnish accurate p…

Shantilal M Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 252/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT/D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

…fice during appellate proceedings. However, the issue relating to addition to capital account of Rs.79,67,61,174/- remained unexplained. Mere unsubstantiated explanation would not absolve assessee, burden is on him to prove has been held 208 ITR 668 (Bom.) & 185 ITR 49 (SC). Consequently, the addition of Unaccounted income of Rs.79,67,61,174/- in assessment order, is hereby confirmed. The ground of appeal is dismissed. 4. Aggrieved against this ex parte order, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us and raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal-4, Pass…

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)

…dia v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977 (SC); Addl. CIT vs. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC); CIT vs. K.R. Sadayappan [1990] 185 ITR 49 (SC)), so that the law in its respect, succinctly stated, is that a plausible explanation, supported by facts, saves penalty. Rather, inasmuch as implicit therein is the concept of 'reasonable cause', penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) does not find mention in s. 273B, stipulating, in respect of the penalty provisions specified therein, non-levy of penalty wh…

Shri Jai Hind Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-5(4), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 146/JPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…lanation unless the deptt is able to establish afresh that assessee had in fact concealed the particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. This view has been approved by the apex court in Musadilal Ram Bharose 165 ITR 14 SC, CIT-v-K.R.Sadayappan 185 ITR 49 SC and in Chuharmal 172 ITR 250 SC. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer the latest decision of SC in the case of Dharmendra Textiles (supra) wherein it has been held-(i) the Explanations appended to section 271(1)(c) indicate the element of strict liability,(ii) the object behind the enactment shows that it provides for remedy for los…

Mesers Malwa Motors, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 131/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 131/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977 (SC); CIT (Addl.) vs. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC); CIT vs. K. R. Sadayappan [1990] 185 ITR 49 (SC)), to cite some, followed by Hon’ble High Courts throughout the country, including the jurisdictional High Court, as in CIT v. Lalchand Tirath Ram [1997] 225 ITR 675 (P&H); Prem Pal Gandhi v. CIT (in ITA No. 353 of 2009, dated 22/7/2009), to note two. Here it may also be relevant to state that the deeming fiction of Explanation 1 shall apply i…

Puneet Saluja, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3497/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…in the case of B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co. v. CIT [2001] 116 Taxman 842 (SC),CIT v. B.A. Baiasubramaniam & Bros. Co. [1985] 152 ITR 529 / 20 Taxman 215(Mad.), CIT v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose [1987] 165 ITR 14 /30 Taxman 546H; CIT v. K.R. Sadayappan [1990] 185 ITR 49/51 Taxman 304 , Addl. CIT v. Jeevan Lai Sah[1994] 205 ITR 244 / 73 Taxman 182 (SC) and K.P. Madhusudanan v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99/ 118 Taxman 324 (SC), it is well established that whenever there is difference between the returned and assessed income, there is inference of concealment. The Explanation 1 to sec. 271 (1)(c) of the Act raises a presum…

Sh. Ruchi Sharma, Jammu vs. The Income Tax Officer, Jammu

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 135/ASR/2017[200910]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 Mar 2019

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 135/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Gandotra (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam and Bros v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977 (SC); Addl. CIT vs. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 3 Ruchi Sharma v. ITO ITR 244 (SC); CIT vs. K. R. Sadayappan [1990] 185 ITR 49 (SC)), to cite some, followed by Hon’ble High Courts throughout the country, as by the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Lalchand Tirath Ram [1997] 225 ITR 675 (P&H); Prem Pal Gandhi v. CIT (in ITA No. 353 of 2009, dated 22/7/2009). As such, where the assessee renders an explanation which he is able to substantiate, disclosing material facts, no…

Sh. Maninder Singh Prop. M/S Dashmesh Bricks, Bathinda vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 440/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A No.440/Asr/2017 Assessment Year:2011-12

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R)
Section 268ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…a v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam and Bros v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977 (SC); Addl. CIT vs. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC); CIT vs. K. R. Sadayappan [1990] 185 ITR 49 7 Maninder Singh, Bathinda vs. ITO (SC), to cite some, followed by Hon’ble High Courts throughout the country, as by the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Lalchand Tirath Ram [1997] 225 ITR 675 (P&H); Prem Pal Gandhi v. CIT (in ITA No. 353 of 2009, dated 22/7/2009), the latter also relied upon by the Revenue before me. Continuing further, in…

The DCIT, Circle-3(1), Baroda vs. M/S/ Amar Mining Company, Baroda

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1032/AHD/2016[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 1998-99

For Appellant: Apoorva Bharadwaj, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Soparkar &
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

…With the enactment of the aforesaid Explanation, mens rea had not been proved by the Department but the assessee had to prove that there was no concealment, as settled in the case of CIT vs. Mussadilal Rambharose, 165 ITR, 14, 20 (SC); CIT vs. K.R. Sadyappan, 185 ITR 49 (SC), CIT (Addl.) vs. Jeevan Lal Shah, 205 ITR 244 (SC), B.A. Balasurbramaniam and Brothers Co. vs. CIT 236 ITR 977, 978 (SC) and KP Madhusudhan vs. CIT, 251 ITR 99 (SC). Reliance is also placed on the recent decision of Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Dharmendra Textile Processors Ltd., 306 ITR 277 (SC), wherein it has been held that "the expla…

P.Srinivasan, Salem vs. ITO, Salem

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed of in the foregoing terms

ITA 1280/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Smt. Veni S.Raj, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 01.08.2017
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…R 593 (SC); CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 317 ITR 1 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam and Bros v. CIT (1999) 236 ITR 977 (SC); Addl. CIT vs. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC); CIT vs. K. R. Sadayappan [1990] 185 ITR 49 (SC); CIT vs. Mussadilal Ram Bharose [1987] 165 ITR 14 (SC); and Sharma Alloys (India) Ltd. v. ITO [2013] 357 ITR 379 (Mad). Coming to the facts of the case, we find that neither in the assessment nor in the penalty proceedings did the assessee furnish any explanation whatsoever with regard to the encashment of the relevant cheques, i.e., as to h…

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5865/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: None(application rejected)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 43(1)Section 43(6)Section 45(7)

…in the case of B.A. BaSasubramaniam & Bros. Co. v. C1T [2001] i 16 Taxman 842 (SC);C1T v. B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co. [1985] 152 ITR 529 / 20 Taxman 2i5(Mad.), CIT v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose [1987] 165 ITR 14 /30 Taxman 546H; C1T v.K.R. Sadayappan [1990] 185 ITR 49 / 51 Taxman 304 , Addl. CIT v. Jeevan Lal Sah[!994] 205 ITR 244 / 73 Taxman 182 (SC) and K.P. Madhusudanan v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 997 118 Taxman 324 (SC), H i- .-.-ell established that whenever there is difference be*-.-;:;^ the returned and assessed income, there is inference of concealment. The Explanation 1 to sec. 271(l)(c) of the Act raises a…

M/S. Sheetal Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6099/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri V.D. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…s change bad been brought about by the insertion of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of IT Act and drew support from the Supreme Court decisions in this issue in the cases of CIT (Addl.) vs. Jeevan Lal Sab (1994) 205 ITR 244 and CIT vs. KR Sadayappan (1990) 185 ITR 49, 54. In a recent case, the Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (306 ITR 277), held that the object behind enactment of 6 section 271(1)(c) read with Explanations indicate that the said section has been enacted to provide for a remedy for loss of revenue and they create the element of strict liability on t…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Modern Stage Service, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 198/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Acit, Vs Modern Stage Service, Ward-32(1), 35, Municipal Market, New Delhi. Lodhi Road, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaafm8966F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri P. Damkanunja, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar Garg, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 05.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.03.2016 Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Damkanunja, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Garg, Adv
Section 27Section 27(1)(c)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…hing inaccurate particulars of income can be drawn. Such presumption is to be discharged by “cogent, reliable and relevant I.T.A. NO. 198/D/2014 Assessment Year 2009-10 materials" as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. K. R. Sadayappan 185 ITR 49. It is the assessee’s contention is that it has wrongly claimed credit of TDS of M/s Modern Stage Services (P) Ltd. on the fact that the deductors have issued TDS certificates in its name because of the similarity in the names of the two along with some common shareholders and partners. In our considered view, wrong claim towards credit of t…

Sri. Basayya R. Nandegol, Vijayapur vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bijapur

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1117/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…tion 1 enacts the rule of evidence whereby the onus is on the assessee and if he fails to discharge the burden, the presumption as to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income can be drawn. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. K.R. Sadayappan, 185 ITR 49 (SC) has held that such presumption is to be discharged by “cogent, reliable and relevant materials”. Page 4 of 5 9. Merely because an assessee is not able to substantiate his explanation, penalty may not be imposed if such explanation is bonafide and all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of total income have been di…

236 ITR 977 (SC); Addl. CIT v. Jeevan Lal Shah (185 ITR 49) — Cited in 16 Judgments | BharatTax