Banta Singh Kartar Singh v. CIT

125 ITR 239High Court1979#6833 most cited

What is Banta Singh Kartar Singh v. CIT authority for?

Agreed additions to income do not prevent the imposition of a concealment penalty if the concealment was found and established by the department. The case supports the view that a surrender of income after detection by the department is not a voluntary offer, and the law does not absolve an assessee from penalty in such circumstances.

16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Banta Singh Kartar Singh v. CIT · concealment penalty · agreed addition · voluntary disclosure · penalty leviable · section 271(1)(c) · onus of proof

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 131Section 194CSection 263Section 40A(3)Section 69CSection 133ASection 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 194csection 40a(3)advance taxsection 40aunexplained investmentsection 69csection 133asection 40section 131scrutiny assessmentsection 263assistant commissioner

Judgments citing Banta Singh Kartar Singh v. CIT

Subramaniam Swaminathan Iyer, Bhilai, Durg vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed/partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 71/RPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.71/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Subramaniam Swaminathan Iyer 12-A/7, Nehru Nagar, Bhilai (C.G.)-490 020 Pan: Anwps2381P

For Appellant: S/shri Milind Bhusari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 68

…hilai attributed to the view taken by the A.O who had rightly made an addition of the same u/s. 68 of the Act. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Banta Singh Kartar Singh Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 239 (P&H), wherein it was held that the order based on an agreement cannot give rise to grievances and the same cannot be agitated in appeal. The Hon’ble High Court while so concluding had relied on the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Jivatlal Purtapshi Vs. CIT (1967) 65 ITR 261 (Bom). Accordingly, in the absence of any expla…

Nishant Jain, Bilaspur vs. ACIT Central Circle, Bilaspur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 512/RPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 510, 511 & 512/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Nishant Jain Ring Road No.2, Shanti Nagar, Near Sidhasikhar Vistar, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Agepj9793M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 510, 511 & 512/RPR/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Nishant Jain Ring Road No.2, Shanti Nagar, Near Sidhasikhar Vistar, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 PAN: AGEPJ9793M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : S/shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal & Vimal Kumar Agrawal, CAs Revenue by : Smt. Anub…

Nishant Jain, Bilaspur vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 511/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 510, 511 & 512/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Nishant Jain Ring Road No.2, Shanti Nagar, Near Sidhasikhar Vistar, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Agepj9793M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 510, 511 & 512/RPR/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Nishant Jain Ring Road No.2, Shanti Nagar, Near Sidhasikhar Vistar, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 PAN: AGEPJ9793M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : S/shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal & Vimal Kumar Agrawal, CAs Revenue by : Smt. Anub…

Nishant Jain, Bilaspur vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 510/RPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 510, 511 & 512/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Nishant Jain Ring Road No.2, Shanti Nagar, Near Sidhasikhar Vistar, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Agepj9793M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 510, 511 & 512/RPR/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Nishant Jain Ring Road No.2, Shanti Nagar, Near Sidhasikhar Vistar, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 PAN: AGEPJ9793M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : S/shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal & Vimal Kumar Agrawal, CAs Revenue by : Smt. Anub…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Tracks & Towers Infratech Private Limited(Part IX), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1515/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal
Section 133ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

…e following decisions:- a) Jivatlal Purtapshi v. CIT (65 ITR 261) (Bom) b) Dr. D.Y. Patil Pratisthan v. DCIT for A.Y. 2006-07 in ITA No. 1592 and 1616/PN/11 dated 14.12.2012. c) Ramanlal Kamdar v. CIT (108 ITR 73) (Madras) d) Banta Singh Kartar Singh v. CIT (125 ITR 239) (Punjab and Haryana) 17. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MCorp Global Pvt.Ltd.(supra), he reiterated that the 28 Tracks & Towers Infratech Pvt.Ltd. (Part IX) Tribunal has no power to take back the benefit granted by the AO and thereby enhancing the assessment. Therefore, if the additional ground of the departme…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Tracks & Towers Infratech Private Limited(Part IX), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1514/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal
Section 133ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

…e following decisions:- a) Jivatlal Purtapshi v. CIT (65 ITR 261) (Bom) b) Dr. D.Y. Patil Pratisthan v. DCIT for A.Y. 2006-07 in ITA No. 1592 and 1616/PN/11 dated 14.12.2012. c) Ramanlal Kamdar v. CIT (108 ITR 73) (Madras) d) Banta Singh Kartar Singh v. CIT (125 ITR 239) (Punjab and Haryana) 17. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MCorp Global Pvt.Ltd.(supra), he reiterated that the 28 Tracks & Towers Infratech Pvt.Ltd. (Part IX) Tribunal has no power to take back the benefit granted by the AO and thereby enhancing the assessment. Therefore, if the additional ground of the departme…

Nadella Munikannaiah, Tirupati vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Tirupati

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

ITA 444/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 N.Dathri L/R Of Late Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1) Nadella Muni Kannaiah Tirupati C/O. Katrapati & Andhra Pradesh Associates 1-1-298/2/B/3, 1St Floor Ashok Nagar,Street No.1 Hyderabad-500 020

For Appellant: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…e. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (35 taxman.com 250) and also on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Banta Singh Kartha Singh (125 ITR 239 P H) for the preposition that concealment penalty can be leviable even on agreed addition when the concealment was found & established by Department. Reliance is also placed on the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the MAK Data Pvt Ltd (358 ITR 593), wherein it was held that surrender of income after detection by the Departm…

DCIT, Rourkela vs. Shri Prashant Kumar Ahluwalia, Sundergarh

In the result, appeal of the department is allowed and that of the

ITA 63/CTK/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 14ASection 153A

…gainst such order passed under his agreement. He also placed reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rameshchandra And Company vs CIT, 168 ITR 375 (Bom), Hon’ble P& H High Court in the case of Banta Singh Kartar Singh vs CIT, 125 ITR 239(P&H) and Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Ramanlal Kamdar vs CIT, 108 ITR 73 (Mad) and submitted that the appeal to ld CIT(A) lies only when the assessee aggrieved by the assessment or reassessment order and when the assessee, during the P a g e 5 | 20 ITA No.6 3/CTK /2 015 ITA No.0 1/CTK /2 015 Assessm ent Y ear : 20 11- 201 2 assessm…

Puran Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3785/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANTMEMBER ITA No.3785/Del./2017 Assessment Year:2013-14 M/s. Puran Associates Pvt. Vs. ACIT, Ltd., Circle-20(1), 4th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi PAN:AAACP0458J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Chandan Aggarwal, CA Shri Akhil Mahajan, CA Department by Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Sr.DR Date of hearing 05.03.2020 Date of pronouncement 29.05.2020 ORDER PER O.P. KANT,A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 30/03/2017…

Baring Pvt. Equity Partners (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee on these grounds is allowed for

ITA 5862/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiyaआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5862/Del/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Baring Pvt. Equity Partners Dcit (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Circle-4(1) A-16/9, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi.

…judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Jivat lal Purtapshi vs. CIT 65 ITR 261, judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Vamadevan Bhanu vs. CIT 330 ITR 559 and judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Banta Singh Kartar Singh vs. CIT 125 ITR 239. Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that the same income was offered in subsequent assessment year. However, he has not pointed out anything from the record why assessee did not make any request before AO for rectification of the order, if, he has not agreed for addition before AO. Since, assessee has not taken any step before AO for rectifica…

Naresh Kumar, Noida vs. ITO, Ward- 2(3), Noida

In the result, ITA.No.6102/Del

ITA 6103/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R
Section 80T

…rtapshi vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax [1967] 65 ITR 261 (Bom.), Judgment of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vamadevan Bhanu 330 ITR 559 (Kerala) and Judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Banta Singh Kartar Singh 125 ITR 239 (P&H). In this case, the Ld. CIT(A) noted in the appellate order that Counsel for Assessee at the very outset, submitted that assessee had income from P.G. at Village Sultanpur, Noida which have not been disclosed by him in his return of income. He has further stated that assessee has also not disclosed capital gains amounting to Rs.2,23,333/-…

Naresh Kumar, Noida vs. ITO, Ward- 2(3), Noida

In the result, ITA.No.6102/Del

ITA 6102/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R
Section 80T

…rtapshi vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax [1967] 65 ITR 261 (Bom.), Judgment of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vamadevan Bhanu 330 ITR 559 (Kerala) and Judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Banta Singh Kartar Singh 125 ITR 239 (P&H). In this case, the Ld. CIT(A) noted in the appellate order that Counsel for Assessee at the very outset, submitted that assessee had income from P.G. at Village Sultanpur, Noida which have not been disclosed by him in his return of income. He has further stated that assessee has also not disclosed capital gains amounting to Rs.2,23,333/-…

Smt. Jagjit Kaur Chawla, Mohali vs. DCIT, Mohali

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

ITA 189/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr.DR
Section 250(6)Section 36

…CTR (P&H) 587, where it is held that the voluntarily statement that too recorded in the presence of family members and counsel is an important piece of evidence which simply cannot be brushed aside unless and until otherwise proved. Banta Singh Kartar Singh, 125 ITR 239 (P&H) Wherein it was held that the assessee cannot turn around after he has agreed to some additions. By agreeing to the addition, the assessee precludes the Assessing Officer for making any further investigation. (6) Rameshchandra & Co. vs. CIT (Bom) 168 ITR 375. It said, in answer, that it could not be held as a matter of. law that the remedy o…

Devendra Kumar Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is dismissed

ITA 5159/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri O.P. Kant, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Anand, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. D.R

…Delhi. Bombay High Court in the case of Jivatlal Purtapshi 65 ITR 261 (Bom.), decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Vama Davan Bhanu 330 ITR 559 (Ker.) and decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Banta Singh Kartar Singh 125 ITR 239 (P & H). In this view of the matter, appeal of assessee was not maintainable before Ld. CIT(A) because the appeal was filed against the agreed additions above. No interference is required in the matter. Appeal of assessee has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. 5. In the result, appeal of Assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in t…

Aquagri Processing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2702/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Avinash Tripathi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Kumar Jiwani, Sr. DR

…d basis which have not been controverted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, therefore, addition shall have to be confirmed. The Ld. CIT(A) followed the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Banta Singh Kartar Singh Vs. CIT, 125 ITR 239 and decision of Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vamadevan Bhanu, 330 ITR 559 and dismissed this ground of appeal of the assessee. 4. After considering the rival submissions, we do not find any merit on this ground of appeal of the assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee sought adjournment, however, considering the facts of the case th…

Ajay Goel, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 7269/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh.Bhavnesh Saini[Assessment Year: 2014-15] Vs Ajay Goel, Ito, C/O-Vinod Kumar Goel, 282, Ward-1(1), Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Meerut. Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Aaqpg9765L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. V.K.Goel, Adv. Respondent By Sh. B.R.Mishra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2018

…the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case Jivat Lal Purtapshi 65 ITR 261, decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case Vama Davan Bhanu 330 ITR 559 and decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Banta Singh Kartar Singh 125 ITR 239. The assessee made a claim of deduction of the interest before the AO. However, the assessee submitted that wrong claim is made, therefore, agreed for the addition of the amount in question. Since the assessee agreed for addition before AO, therefore, no appeal lies on this ground before Ld.CIT(A). Further, whatever prayer was made before Ld.C…

Banta Singh Kartar Singh v. CIT (125 ITR 239) — Cited in 16 Judgments | BharatTax