How many judgments cite Addl CIT v. Prem Chand Garg?

10 judgments on BharatTax cite Addl CIT v. Prem Chand Garg (31 SOT 97), spanning 2015 to 2021.

Addl CIT v. Prem Chand Garg

31 SOT 97Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#10506 most cited

What is Addl CIT v. Prem Chand Garg authority for?

Penalty for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars is not leviable when an omission from a return is due to inadvertence or ignorance, unless there is evidence of an intention to hide income. The existence of concealment or inaccurate particulars is a question of fact determined by considering all attending circumstances.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2021.

Also referred to as

Addl CIT v. Prem Chand Garg · 31 SOT 97 · penalty u/s 271(1)(c) · concealment of income · inaccurate particulars · question of fact · attending circumstances · inadvertence · ignorance

Judgments citing Addl CIT v. Prem Chand Garg

Pranit Kirtikant Nanavati, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle-4(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2277/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 5Section 59

…said income. The ld. counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of judicial pronouncement in the case of CIT vs. Ashok Taker (2008) 170 taxman 471 (Delhi) and the decision of ITAT Delhi in the case of Addl. CIT-CC-14, New Delhi vs. Premchand Garg (2009) 31 SOT 97 (Del). On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative has supported the order of lower authorities. 6. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee filed letter before the Assessing Officer informing that he has filed a declaration in Form no. 6 under the Black Money (Und…

Suresh Raghuraman, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 365/CHNY/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri, M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Mr.P.Radhakrishnan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: 16-01-2018

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…at the penalty is eligible automatically for every addition made in the assessment. In this regard, we would like to place reliance on the Third Member decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. PREM CHAND GARG reported in [2009] 31 SOT 97 (ITAT[Del]) wherein it was held that:- “19. The fact, whether there is concealment of income or whether inaccurate particulars thereof have been furnished is essentially a question of feet. To find out that or to decide which, all the attending circumstances have to be taken into account. The question is at what point of time this material fact is…

Shri Sanat Kumar Bhattacharjee, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-27, Haldia, Midnapore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 497/KOL/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 496&497/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2003-04 & 2005-06 Shri Sanat Kr. Bhattacharjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-27, Haldia [Pan: Adfpb 6426 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V.N. Purohit, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri M.Balaganesh, AM & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM] I.T.A Nos. 496&497/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2003-04 & 2005-06 Shri Sanat Kr. Bhattacharjee -vs- ACIT, Circle-27, Haldia [PAN: ADFPB 6426 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri V.N. Purohit, FCA For the Respondent : Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 14.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 22.11.2017 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. These two appeals by the Assessee arise out of the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Kolka…

Shri Sanat Kumar Bhattacharjee, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-27, Haldia, Midnapore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 496/KOL/2016[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2017AY 2003-2004

For Appellant: Shri V.N. Purohit, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Juhi Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3626/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. : 2004-05 Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S Juhi Investment Co. Pvt. Income Tax, Vs. Ltd., Circle-4(1), L-77, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, Room No. 407, C.R. Building, New Delhi I.P. Estate, (Pan:Aaacj2146B) New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…O that the explanation offered by the assessee was not bona fide or there was a concealment. In taking this view, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Prem Chand Garg (supra) Addl. CIT v. Prem Chand Garg (2009) 31 SOT 97 (Delhi)(TM)/ (2009) 123 TTJ (Del)(TM) and that of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Balbir Singh (2008) 304 ITR 125/ (2007) 164 Taxman 65 (Punj. & Har.). Therefore, such levy of penalty in respect of the addition of Rs.60,58,065/- on account of suppression in closing stock is deleted. 4.4 With regard to the other…

Income Tax Officer Ward-55(4), Kolkata vs. Shri Jay Kumar Khemka, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2411/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri G. Hukuga Sema, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ed which had been made in the original disclosure statement u/s 132(4) of the Act. On this point we profitably make reference to the Third Member decision of the co-ordinate bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Addl CIT vs Prem Chand Garg reported in (2009) 31 SOT 97 (Delhi) (TM ) dated 11.5.2009, wherein it was held that :- 19. The fact , whether there is concealment of income or whether inaccurate particulars thereof have been furnished is essentially a question of fact. To find out that or to decide which, all the attending circumstances have to be taken into account. The question is at what point of time t…

Shri Shankar Halder, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T.-Circle-18, Kolkata

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2516/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2516 & 2517/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri T.P.Kar, ARFor Respondent: Shri T.K.Neogi, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…ncome in his return of income was due to inadvertence and ignorance. In such circumstances, we are of the view that imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act would not be appropriate. The ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Addl. CIT vs Premchand Garg (2009) 31 SOT 97 (Delhi) in an identical case took a view that mere omission of surrendering income from the return does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income unless and until there is some evidence to show or circumstances found from which it can be gathered that omission was attributable to an intention or desire on the part of…

D.C.I.T.Cir - VIII, Kol, Kolkata vs. Shri Ram Chandra Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as stated above

ITA 1700/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Chhaparia,FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Md. S.S Alam, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “ C” BENCH, KOLKATA Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member, and Before : Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member ITA No. 1700/Kol/2012 A.Y 2008-09 D.C.I.T, C.C-VIII, Kolkata Vs. Ram Chandra Agarwal PAN: ACZPA8989R (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant/Department: Md. S.S Alam, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR For the Respondent/Assessee : Shri K.K. Chhaparia,FCA, ld.AR Date of Hearing: 11-02-2016 Date of Pronouncement: 17 -02-2016 ORDER SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM This appeal of the revenue arise out of the order of the Learned CIT(A)-I, Kolkata in Appeal No. 63/CC-VIII/CIT(A)C-I/Kol…

DCIT, CC-I, Kolkata vs. Sheo Kumar Kajaria, Kolkata

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1425/KOL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: S/Shri A.K TibrewalFor Respondent: Shri S.Dutta, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)

…12) 24 taxmann.com 260 (Delhi) e) Decision of Kolkata Tribunal in the case of DCWT vs Vivek Kr. Kathotia in WTA Nos. 02 to 08 / Kol / 2013 dated 15.5.2015 f) Third Member decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Addl CIT vs Prem Chand Garg reported in (2009) 31 SOT 97 (Delhi) (TM ) dated 11.5.2009 g) Decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Ramesh Chand Goyal in G.A. No. 2347 of 2010 in ITAT No. 181 of 2010 dated 11.8.2010 h) Decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs S.D.V.Chandru reported in (2004) 266 ITR 175 (Mad) i) Decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of…

Sri Narendra N. Thacker, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C.Xxiv, Kolkata

ITA Nos.1786-

ITA 1786/KOL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)

…vised by the assessee by making further disclosures of income during the course of assessment proceedings. We place reliance on the Third Member decision of the co- ordinate bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Addl CIT vs Prem Chand Garg reported in (2009) 31 SOT 97 (Delhi) (TM ) dated 11.5.2009, wherein it was held that :- 19. The fact , whether there is concealment of income or whether inaccurate particulars thereof have been furnished is essentially a question of fact. To find out that or to decide which, all the attending circumstances have to be taken into account. The question is at what point of time t…