Charanjit Kumar v. CIT

201 CTR 37Reported decision2006#9512 most cited

What is Charanjit Kumar v. CIT authority for?

Retractions of statements made during search or survey assessments should be made at the earliest opportunity or within a reasonable time. Later retractions may be considered an afterthought.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Charanjit Kumar v. CIT · 201 CTR 37 · retraction of statement · section 132(4) · earliest opportunity · reasonable time · afterthought · search and seizure · survey assessment

Issues it is cited on

section 271aabstatement under section 132(4)retracted statementdumb documentssection 271aasection 271asection 40a(3)on-moneytnmmsection 40aconcealment of incomerevenue expenditure

Judgments citing Charanjit Kumar v. CIT

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2050/HYD/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…of 15 months. If there was some ‘undue pressure’, as alleged, what prevented the appellant from filing the retraction earlier? The retraction is, therefore, clearly an after-thought. As held by the P&H High Court in the case of Charanjit Kumar Vs. CIT (2006) 201 CTR 37. “Retraction should be at the earliest opportunity or atleast within reasonable time”. The assessee in this case retracted from its statement after 45 months and the- manner of filing of return of income excluding the surrendered income clearly depicts that the said retraction was an afterthought. In the case of Bachittar Singh Vs. CIT (2010) 236…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2049/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…of 15 months. If there was some ‘undue pressure’, as alleged, what prevented the appellant from filing the retraction earlier? The retraction is, therefore, clearly an after-thought. As held by the P&H High Court in the case of Charanjit Kumar Vs. CIT (2006) 201 CTR 37. “Retraction should be at the earliest opportunity or atleast within reasonable time”. The assessee in this case retracted from its statement after 45 months and the- manner of filing of return of income excluding the surrendered income clearly depicts that the said retraction was an afterthought. In the case of Bachittar Singh Vs. CIT (2010) 236…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2048/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…of 15 months. If there was some ‘undue pressure’, as alleged, what prevented the appellant from filing the retraction earlier? The retraction is, therefore, clearly an after-thought. As held by the P&H High Court in the case of Charanjit Kumar Vs. CIT (2006) 201 CTR 37. “Retraction should be at the earliest opportunity or atleast within reasonable time”. The assessee in this case retracted from its statement after 45 months and the- manner of filing of return of income excluding the surrendered income clearly depicts that the said retraction was an afterthought. In the case of Bachittar Singh Vs. CIT (2010) 236…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2047/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…of 15 months. If there was some ‘undue pressure’, as alleged, what prevented the appellant from filing the retraction earlier? The retraction is, therefore, clearly an after-thought. As held by the P&H High Court in the case of Charanjit Kumar Vs. CIT (2006) 201 CTR 37. “Retraction should be at the earliest opportunity or atleast within reasonable time”. The assessee in this case retracted from its statement after 45 months and the- manner of filing of return of income excluding the surrendered income clearly depicts that the said retraction was an afterthought. In the case of Bachittar Singh Vs. CIT (2010) 236…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2046/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…of 15 months. If there was some ‘undue pressure’, as alleged, what prevented the appellant from filing the retraction earlier? The retraction is, therefore, clearly an after-thought. As held by the P&H High Court in the case of Charanjit Kumar Vs. CIT (2006) 201 CTR 37. “Retraction should be at the earliest opportunity or atleast within reasonable time”. The assessee in this case retracted from its statement after 45 months and the- manner of filing of return of income excluding the surrendered income clearly depicts that the said retraction was an afterthought. In the case of Bachittar Singh Vs. CIT (2010) 236…

Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1910/HYD/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…of 15 months. If there was some ‘undue pressure’, as alleged, what prevented the appellant from filing the retraction earlier? The retraction is, therefore, clearly an after-thought. As held by the P&H High Court in the case of Charanjit Kumar Vs. CIT (2006) 201 CTR 37. “Retraction should be at the earliest opportunity or atleast within reasonable time”. The assessee in this case retracted from its statement after 45 months and the- manner of filing of return of income excluding the surrendered income clearly depicts that the said retraction was an afterthought. In the case of Bachittar Singh Vs. CIT (2010) 236…

Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1909/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…of 15 months. If there was some ‘undue pressure’, as alleged, what prevented the appellant from filing the retraction earlier? The retraction is, therefore, clearly an after-thought. As held by the P&H High Court in the case of Charanjit Kumar Vs. CIT (2006) 201 CTR 37. “Retraction should be at the earliest opportunity or atleast within reasonable time”. The assessee in this case retracted from its statement after 45 months and the- manner of filing of return of income excluding the surrendered income clearly depicts that the said retraction was an afterthought. In the case of Bachittar Singh Vs. CIT (2010) 236…

Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1908/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…of 15 months. If there was some ‘undue pressure’, as alleged, what prevented the appellant from filing the retraction earlier? The retraction is, therefore, clearly an after-thought. As held by the P&H High Court in the case of Charanjit Kumar Vs. CIT (2006) 201 CTR 37. “Retraction should be at the earliest opportunity or atleast within reasonable time”. The assessee in this case retracted from its statement after 45 months and the- manner of filing of return of income excluding the surrendered income clearly depicts that the said retraction was an afterthought. In the case of Bachittar Singh Vs. CIT (2010) 236…

Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1907/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…of 15 months. If there was some ‘undue pressure’, as alleged, what prevented the appellant from filing the retraction earlier? The retraction is, therefore, clearly an after-thought. As held by the P&H High Court in the case of Charanjit Kumar Vs. CIT (2006) 201 CTR 37. “Retraction should be at the earliest opportunity or atleast within reasonable time”. The assessee in this case retracted from its statement after 45 months and the- manner of filing of return of income excluding the surrendered income clearly depicts that the said retraction was an afterthought. In the case of Bachittar Singh Vs. CIT (2010) 236…

Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1906/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…of 15 months. If there was some ‘undue pressure’, as alleged, what prevented the appellant from filing the retraction earlier? The retraction is, therefore, clearly an after-thought. As held by the P&H High Court in the case of Charanjit Kumar Vs. CIT (2006) 201 CTR 37. “Retraction should be at the earliest opportunity or atleast within reasonable time”. The assessee in this case retracted from its statement after 45 months and the- manner of filing of return of income excluding the surrendered income clearly depicts that the said retraction was an afterthought. In the case of Bachittar Singh Vs. CIT (2010) 236…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Ashoka Developers & Builders Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 207/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. C.I.T Vs. Ashok Developers & Central Circle 1(1) Builders Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.09.2018 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Limited Company & Engaged In The Business Of Constructions. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.6,61,44,100/-. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Was Carried Out In The Assessees’ Group Of Cases On 18.02.2016. In Response To The Notice U/S 153A, The Assessee Filed Revised Return Of Income On 7.9.2016 Declaring Income Of Rs.13,58,60,960/-.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…Director of the Company u /s. 132(4) of the Act on comparison of amounts mentioned as consideration in the Agreement of Sale. 7. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in not relying upon the decision as held by the P & H High Court in the case of Charanjit Kumar Vs. CIT (2006) 201 CTR 37: "Retraction should be at the earliest opportunity or at least within reasonable time." 8. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not relying upon the decision as held by Hon'ble MP High Court in the case of SS Ratanchund Bholanath Vs. CIT 210 ITR 682: "When assessee admitted that a particular income is liable to be included in its total income assessment made…

Charanjit Kumar v. CIT (201 CTR 37) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax