ACIT v. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF

348 ITR 561Supreme Court of India2012#4200 most cited

What is ACIT v. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF authority for?

Section 271AAA penalty deletion can be based on the Apex Court's decision in ACIT v. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF (2012) 348 ITR 561, particularly when there was no specific question put to the assessee about the manner of earning undisclosed income.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

ACIT v. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF · 348 ITR 561 · Section 271AAA · deletion of penalty · penalty u/s 271AAA · undisclosed income · manner of earning income · search and seizure

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 148Section 133(6)Section 140A(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 271 AAA

Issues it is cited on

section 140a(1)section 271aaadeletion of penaltysection 271aapenalty under section 271(1)(c)section 271asection 274sundry creditorsappeal before cit(a)section 271(1)levy of penaltysection 271

Judgments citing ACIT v. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF

M/S. Narsi Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3547/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

…on 271AAA as was held in Mahendra C. Shah (supra) while interpreting Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c). 11. Explanation 5(2) of Section 271(1)(c) was considered by the Supreme Court in Asstt. CIT v. Gebilal Kanhaialal [2012] 25 taxmann.com 214/210 Taxman 244/348 ITR 561. It was held that Explanation 5 (2) to Section 271 (1) (c) provides, where, in the course of search under Section 132, the assessee, found to be owner of unaccounted assets, claims that such assets have been acquired by him by utilizing, wholly or partly, his income for any previous year which has ended before the date of search or which is to en…

M/S Multitech Towers Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas, the Cross objection of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 733/CHANDI/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 733/Chd/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Multitech Towers Pvt Ltd., The Dcit, Central Circle-1, बनाम Sco 139-141,Sector 17-C, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaecm5219Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri N.K. Saini, ITPFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh, Sr DR
Section 253(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…has submitted that the assessee had already paid the taxes before levy of penalty in question. That the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘ACIT Vs. Gebilal Kanhaialal, HUF’ [2012] 348 ITR 561 (SC) . 4. The Ld. DR could not produce any distinguishing case laws. It is pertinent to mention that in the case of ‘ACIT Vs. Gebilal Kanhaialal, HUF’ (supra) the issue was relating to the imposition of penalty in the light of the clause (2) of explanation 5 of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, wherein, the requirement was that the…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ssa, International Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5051/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 271A

…’ble High Court of Delhi in a case relied upon by the ld. CIT DR cited as Pr.CIT vs. Smt. Ritu Singal – (2018) 92 taxmann.com 224 (Delhi) after discussing the decisions relied upon by the ld. AR rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in ACIT vs. Gebilal Kanhaialal 348 ITR 561 (SC) and Mak Data (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT 358 ITR 539 (SC), Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah – 299 ITR 305 (Guj.), Hon’ble Allahabad 8 ITA No.5051/Del./2013 High Court in CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel - 278 ITR 454 (All.), Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Mothers Pride Education Personnel (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA No.3372 (Delhi of 2…

Sh. Dipti Lal, Morinda vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assesses are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 495/CHANDI/2001[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Apr 2018AY 1994-95

Bench: Ms.Diva Singh & Ms.Annapurna Guptash. Dipti Lal, Vs. The D.C.I.T., Goldsmith, Purana Bazar, Investigation Circle 2(1), Morinda. Chandigarh. Pan: - (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Addl.CIT
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…issue of penalty levied as per Explanation-5 to section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) in the light of interpretation given to the said section by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Gebilal Kanhaialal, HUF (2012) 348 ITR 561. 2. The background of the case is that search and seizure operation was carried out on the assessee on 30-08-93 and thereafter the assessee filed his income tax return for the assessment year 1994-95, inclusive of surrender made under Section 132(4) of the Act. The Assessing Officer framed the assessment accepting the returned/surrendered inc…

DCIT, Cir-2, Siliguri vs. Shri Suresh Karmakar, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1399/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Nov 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1399/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-2, Siliguri -Vs- Shri Suresh Karmakar [Pan: Alipk 6761 D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Avinash Mishra, CITFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…010-11. 4. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee had satisfied all three conditions provided u/s 271AAA(2) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF, reported in 348 ITR 561 (SC) wherein it was held that there was no time limit prescribed in the Statute for payment of tax and interest on the undisclosed income offered u/s 132(4) of the Act in the context of explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court accordingly held that the assessee is indeed for immunity provided in Clause 2 of Explana…

M/S Vee Gee Industrial Enterprises, Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5050/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr.DR
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…sed in cash flow and balance sheet filed at assessment stage then it was a case of bona-fide error and not a case of concealment of income. 17. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. M/s Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF reported in 348 ITR 561, he submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that the only condition which was required to be fulfilled for getting the immunity, after the search proceedings got over, was that the assessee had to pay the tax together with interest in respect of such undisclosed income upto the date of payment. Clause (2) did not…

Ravi Kiran Aggarwal, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1967/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arun Shenoy, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

…-Trib), DCIT vs. Tapadia & Kasliwal Associates (2015) 44 CCH 518 (Pune-Trib), Concrete Developers vs. ACIT (2013) 34 taxman.com 62 (Nagpur-Trib), AC – CC vs. M/s. Phoenix Mills Ltd. (ITA No. 6190/Mum/2013 (Mum- Trib) and ACIT vs. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF (2012) 348 ITR 561 (SC). 4 The learned counsel also relied on the order of the ITAT ‘D’ Bench, Mumbai in the case of Shri Dinesh Kiran Aggarwal for the A.Y. 2010-11 (ITA No. 2634/Mum/2013). 6. The learned DR relied on the order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the penalty of Rs. 2,20,00,000/- imposed by the A.O. u/s 271AAA. 7. We have heard the rival submissions…

Sumer Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Asst

ITA 812/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.812/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Sumer Builders, Vs. The Dy. Cit Central 201, Commerce House, Circle-36 , 140, N.M. Road, Fort, 11/43, Ground Floor, Mumbai – 400023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs2829R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri. Vachaspati Tripathi
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…earch and offered the income to the tax, therefore, the explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act does apply to the assessee’s case. The Ld. Counsel relying on the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gebilal Kanhaialal, HUF vs. ACIT 2012 348 ITR 561 (SC) , submitted that in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 2.6 On the other hand Ld DR relying upon the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The case law relied upon by the assessee is not applicable to the…