Chandrapal Bagga v. ITAT

261 ITR 67High Court2003#7797 most cited

What is Chandrapal Bagga v. ITAT authority for?

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed if an assessee has disclosed the relevant basic facts of a transaction and wrongly claimed an exemption due to ignorance of law, as this does not constitute concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Chandrapal Bagga v. ITAT · 261 ITR 67 · Section 271(1)(c) · concealment of income · inaccurate particulars · ignorance of law · disclosure of facts · penalty deletion

Sections most often in play

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Judgments citing Chandrapal Bagga v. ITAT

Rakesh Kumar Jain, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 212/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CA and Shri Vikas Yadav AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihyla-@ITA No. 212/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2014-15 Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain cuke The DCIT Vs. 4365, KGB Ka Rasta, Johri Bazar Circle-2 Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPJ 9249 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri C.L. Yadav, CA and Shri Vikas Yadav Advocate jktLo dh vksjls@Rev…

Superfine Hotels Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1502/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena, CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 35A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,"B" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठौड़ कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 1502/JPR/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 Superfine Hotels Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Floor, J-13, Lal Kothi Yojna, Nehru Sahakar Marge, jaipur. बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle6, Jaipur. स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AALCS0201P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assess…

Shri Salahuddin H. Baig, Bharuch vs. The ACIT, Bharuch Circle, Bharuch

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 500/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.P.K. Panda (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54F

…HUF, Surat vs. ITO, Bardoli inaccurate particulars of income. Further, reliance was placed on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in case of Reliance Petroproducts 322 ITR 158 (SC) and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court decision in case of Chandra Pal Bagga vs ITAT 261 ITR 67 (Raj) for the proposition that mere denial of a legal claim cannot be held as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It was accordingly submitted that the penalty order so passed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable in law and the penalty so levied may be directed to be deleted. 3. The ld. Sr. DR is heard who has relied on the finding…

Contemporary Target Private Limited, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 159/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2019AY 2010-11
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…nd the basic facts regarding claim is available in the return of income the part disallowance of the same cannot lead to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as held in the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Chandrapal Bagga v/s. ITAT reported at 261 ITR 67 and CIT v/s. Atul Mohan Bindal reported at 317 ITR 1 (S.C.) (3) As regards disallowance of interest expense of Rs.19,86,056/- relating to capital work in progress, there is no case for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as the issue of a particular expenditure being capital or revenue is a matter of constant litigation between the assessee and the d…

Contemporary Target Private Limited, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 158/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2019AY 2009-10
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…nd the basic facts regarding claim is available in the return of income the part disallowance of the same cannot lead to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as held in the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Chandrapal Bagga v/s. ITAT reported at 261 ITR 67 and CIT v/s. Atul Mohan Bindal reported at 317 ITR 1 (S.C.) (3) As regards disallowance of interest expense of Rs.20,45,687/- considering the same to be relating to capital work in progress, there is no case for penalty u/s 271(1)(c)f the Act as the issue of a particular expenditure being capital or revenue is a matter of constant litigation betwe…

Gaytri Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 118/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: The Learned Authority & No Fact Had Been Concealed By The Assessee. 2. Whether In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Is It Justified By The Learned Authority To Levy Penalty, Whereby The Property Being Used For Residential Purpose Only. 3. Whether In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Is It Justified By The Learned Authority To Levy Penalty, Even If Assessee Is Not Required To Maintained Books Of Accounts As Per U/S 44Aa Read With Rule 6F Of Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Whether In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Is It Justified By The Learned Authority To Levy Penalty, Whereby Mistake In Claiming Of Deduction Under Wrong Provision Of Law Was Bona-Fide Mistake.”

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Singh (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Neena Jeph (JCIT)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54Section 54F

…n, he has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in 4 Smt. Gaytari Sharma vs. ITO case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 as well as decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Chandrapal Bagga vs. ITAT & Another 261 ITR 67. Hence, the ld. AR has submitted that once the assessee has brought the relevant facts on record and explained the omission and mistake in the claim of deduction of u/s 54 instead of Section 54F of the Act then, the assessee is covered by the provisions of Section 273B of the Act. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR has relied upon the orders of t…

Shri Baldevbhai Atmaram Patel, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1911/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri D. K. Parikh, A. RFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Dev, Sr. D. R
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54BSection 54F

…the duty of the Assessing Officer to ask for further details and tax income if it is liable to tax which has been done in this particular case. The same ratio has also been upheld by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Chandrapal Bagga-vs-ITAT reported in 261 ITR 67 (Raj). Finally, we observe that though the claim for exemption as made by the assessee found not tenable under the statute it ultimately does not make out a case of deliberate concealment of income rather it is a case of bonafide contesting claim of exemption and therefore the penalty cannot be levied. In that view of the matter, we are of the opi…

Shri Avnish Bansal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3-1, Jaipur

In the result, the penalty so levied in both the cases is hereby directed to be deleted

ITA 589/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Dec 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Soni (CA)For Respondent: Shri J. C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 589/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2011-12 cuke Shri Avnish Bansal, Income Tax Officer, Vs. C-110, Garud Marg, Vaishali Ward 3(1), Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AGHPB1510B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 603/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2011-12 cuke Shri Ashutosh Bansal, Inco…

A.C.I.T. Central Circle-20, Mumbai vs. Ankur Drugs & Pharma Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 7529/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 7529/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri. R.P Meena, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…here is no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars on the part of the assessee. In this view of the matter the penalty imposed by the A.O. and sustained by the CIT(A) is deleted - Chandra Pal Bagga vs. ITAT & Anr. (2003) 182 CTR (Raj) 185 : (2003) 261 ITR 67 (Raj) relied on. " 7.3.1 In the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro products P. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: A glance at the provision of s. 271 (1)(c) would suggest that in order to be covered there has to be a concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have…

Sri Sachinadra Nath Kayal, Hooghly vs. ITO, WD-23(1), Hooghly

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1084/KOL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11 Sri Sachindra Nath Kayal Ito Warrd-23(1), बनाम Vill. Makhla-2, P.O. & Aayakar Bhawan, / V/S. P.S. Uttarpara, Khadinamore, Dist.Hooghly Pin 712247 Chinsurah, Hooghly [Pan No.Afepk 7726 E] Pin-712101 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri S.P. Datta, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 24-10-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 26-12-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata Dated 09.07.2015 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11. Penalty Levied By Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 30.04.2013. Shri S.P. Datta, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri Saurbh Kumar, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue.

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

…1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied. In holding so, we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Chandrapal Bagga vs. Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal on 31.01.2003 Equivalent citations (2003) 182 CTR Raj, 185, 2003 261 ITR 67 Raj, wherein the Hon'ble Court has held:- “11. When the assessee has disclosed the transactions which is the basis for capital gains tax and though wrongly claimed exemption from the capital gains tax, but that cannot be a case of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. If it has claimed any exemption after disclosing the rele…

ITO 18(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ashok Bhimrao Mokashi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 7053/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7053/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Income Tax Officer-18(3)(1), Shri Ashok Bhimrao बनाम/ 207, Piramal Chambers, Mokashi, V. Lalbaug, 12, Harguru Niwas, Mumbai – 400 012. 45, Taikalwadi, Manorama Nagarkar Road, Mahim, Mumbai –400 016. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Adhpm6235P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…have escaped assessment. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty u/s.271 (1)(c) of the I.T.Act,1961 of Rs.42,29,880/- for AY.2009-10 by relying on the judgment of Chandra Pal Bagga Vs. ITAT & ANR (261 ITR 67)(Raj) and CIT Vs. Sri Saradha Textile Processors Pvt. Ltd.(286 ITR 499)(Mad) as in these case laws, the transaction on which penalty was levied were disclosed by the assessee in their return of incomes whereas in the instant case, the transaction on which penalty was levied was not disclosed in the return of income. 5. On the facts and circumstan…

Dilip Shirodkar, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6607/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 271(1)(c)

…d and elaborated before us also. Reliance has been placed on the following judgements in support of the argument that no penalty should be levied under such circumstances. 1. Bennet Coleman & Co Ltd ITA No. 2117 of 2012 (Bombay High Court) 2. Chandrapal Bagga 261 ITR 67 (Raj) 3. ITO vs Roborant Investments (P) Ltd 7 SOT 181 (Mum) 6 4. CIT vs Caplin Point Laboratories Ltd 293 ITR 524 (Mad) 9. We have considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case. This fact is not denied that the land was situated in a village. Further, this fact is also not denied that the impugned land is described as agricultural la…

Ms. Leela Mondal, North 24 Parganas vs. I.T.O, WD -50(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2383/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: ShriH. K. Mridha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Alam, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 111ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…Memo. The Ld. AR reiterated the same submissions as submitted before the lower authorities in the written submission. In addition, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Chandra Paul Bagga vs. ITAT & Ors. Reported in 261 ITR 67 wherein it was held as under: “ The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation offered by the assessee and taxed the difference of Rs. 1,40,000/- as Short Term Capital Gain. No appeal was preferred and the addition had become final. Thereafter the Assessing officer initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-III vs. M/S. Anant Overseas P. Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/479/2014HC Delhi04 Sept 2014
Section 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…of the particulars had been concealed and submitted inaccurately. (vi) ,The assessee invited attention towards the Judgement of Hon'ble Rajasthan, High Court, Jaipur Bench in the case of Chender Pal, Bagga vs. the Appellate Tribunal and another (2003) 261 ITR 67 (Raj.). Relying upon this judgement, it was contended that if the assessee has claimed any exemption after disclosing the relevant basic facts and under ignorance of the provisions of the Act of 1961 has not offered that amount for tax, in such cases, penalty should not be imposed. (vii) The assessee also placed reliance upon the judgement…

Chandrapal Bagga v. ITAT (261 ITR 67) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax