CIT v. Gurbachan Lal

250 ITR 157High Court#9586 most cited

What is CIT v. Gurbachan Lal authority for?

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied merely because the assessment order was justified on the basis of the state of accounts and evidence during the quantum proceedings. Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) does not make the assessment order conclusive evidence that the amount assessed is the income of the assessee.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gurbachan Lal · 250 ITR 157 · section 271(1)(c) · Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) · penalty for concealment of income · assessment order not conclusive evidence · justification of assessment vs penalty

Judgments citing CIT v. Gurbachan Lal

Raees Alam Siddiqui, Ghazipur vs. Dy. C.I.T., Range - 1, Varanasi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 39/VNS/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi31 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Arvind Shukla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amandeep Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…80 ITR 487, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court had held that in a case of substitution of one estimate by another estimate, the penalty was not leviable. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gurbachan Lal 250 ITR 157 and CIT vs. Rahuji and Co. 250 ITR 225 to make the point that Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) did not make the assessment order conclusive evidence, that the amount assessed was, in fact, the income of the assessee. On account of the state of accounts, and evidence in the quantum 4 Raees Alam Siddiqui A.Y. 2015-16 proceedings, the assessment…

Arjun Singh, Kota vs. ACIT, Circle-I

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 106/JPR/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Dec 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…le explanation by assessee. The explanation should be based on cogent and relevant material and should be accepted to the authorities. In this connection reference may be made to the Delhi High Court's decision in the case of CIT Vs. Gurbachan Lal reported in 250 ITR 157 (Delhi) 3.1.3. The apex court has approved the interpretation placed upon the Explanation by a full bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Viswakarma Industries Vs. CIT (1982) 135 ITR 652. Similar view has been expressed by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. K.P. Madhusudan reported in 246 ITR 218. This decision has been affirmed…

Raj Kumari Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Dy CIT, CC-II, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Jun 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri R. K. Bhatra (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 125/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 Deputy cuke Smt. Raj Kumari Maheshwari Commissioner of 18, Gopal Li Ka Rasta, Vs. Income-Tax, Jaipur. Central Circle-2, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AHXPM 3143 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri R. K. Bhatra (…

Gaurav Garg, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5716/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 132ASection 13ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69A

…sed on cogent and relevant material and should be acceptable to the authorities. In this connection Page 11 of 15 ITA No. -5716/Del/2015. Gaurav Garg. reference may be made to the Delhi High Court’s decision in the case of CIT Vs. Gurbachan Lai reported in 250 ITR 157(Delhi) (vi) The apex court had approved the interpretation placed upon the Explanation by a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Viswakarma Industries Vs. CIT (1982) 135 ITR 652. (vii) Similar view has been expressed by the Kerala High Court in the ease of CIT Vs. K.P. Madhusudana reported in 246 ITR 218. This decision has been affi…

M/S. Oil Industry Development Board, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4664/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

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

Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 36

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: “E”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.4662, 4663 & 4664/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-04 & 2007-08 M/s. Oil Industry Vs. DCIT, Development Board, Circle-31(1), New Delhi 301, World Trade Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi PAN :AAAJO0032A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by S/shri Susheel Kumar Gupta & D.C. Garg, CAs Respondent by Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing 20.03.2019 Date of pronouncement 04.04.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: These three appeals by the assessee are directed…

M/S. Oil Industry Development Board, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4663/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

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

Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 36

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: “E”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.4662, 4663 & 4664/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-04 & 2007-08 M/s. Oil Industry Vs. DCIT, Development Board, Circle-31(1), New Delhi 301, World Trade Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi PAN :AAAJO0032A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by S/shri Susheel Kumar Gupta & D.C. Garg, CAs Respondent by Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing 20.03.2019 Date of pronouncement 04.04.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: These three appeals by the assessee are directed…

M/S. Oil Industry Development Board, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4662/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

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

Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 36

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: “E”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.4662, 4663 & 4664/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-04 & 2007-08 M/s. Oil Industry Vs. DCIT, Development Board, Circle-31(1), New Delhi 301, World Trade Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi PAN :AAAJO0032A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by S/shri Susheel Kumar Gupta & D.C. Garg, CAs Respondent by Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing 20.03.2019 Date of pronouncement 04.04.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: These three appeals by the assessee are directed…

Shri Ashwinbhai B.Pokia, Surat vs. The ACIT.Circle-9, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1011/AHD/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1011/Ahd/2014/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2004-05 Ashwinbhai B. Pokia Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of 61, Saify Society, Income-Tax, L.H.Road, Surat – 395006. Circle-9, Surat. [Pan: Ackpp 5049 C] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri J.K.Chandnani, Sr.Dr राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 12.07.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 31.07.2018

Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…Page 1 of 7 Ashwinbhai B. Pokia v. ITO, ACIT, Circle-9, Surat/I.T.A. No.1011/Ahd/2014/A.Y.:2004-05 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT "ी सी.एम.गग", "याियक सद"य तथा "ी ओ.पी.मीना, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1011/Ahd/2014/SRT िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2004-05 Ashwinbhai B. Pokia Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of 61, Saify Society, Income-tax, L.H.Road, Surat – 395006. Circle-9, Surat. [PAN: ACKPP 5049 C] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah – CA िनधा"रती क" ओ…

M/S. Sheetal Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6099/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri V.D. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…that the assessee had deliberately or with mala fide intentions furnished inaccurate particulars for the purpose of imposition of penalty u/s 271(1) of the Act Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Gurbachan Lal (250 ITR 157) where the court held that this change bad been brought about by the insertion of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of IT Act and drew support from the Supreme Court decisions in this issue in the cases of CIT (Addl.) vs. Jeevan Lal Sab (1994) 205 ITR 244 and CIT vs. KR Sadayappan (1990) 185 ITR 49, 54. In a recent case, the Supreme Court, in th…

Ms. Rajni Dang, Saharanpur vs. ITO, Saharanpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2968/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ticulars of his income and accordingly this is a fit case for levy of penalty uls 271(1)( c ) of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 8.1 We further find that Ld. CIT(A) by placing reliance of the decision in the case of Ram Sewak Chandra 151 CTR 294 (All) and Gurbachan Lal 250 ITR 157 (Del.) has held that in a case of long term capital gain only declared in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, burden is on the assessee to prove that there was no concealment of income or of true particulars. Hence, further held that angle of concealment is more than established and therefore, upheld the penalty of Rs. 4,900/-. 4 8.2 We fur…

Sh. Sanjay Kumar Dang, Saharanpur vs. ITO, Saharanpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2967/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ticulars of his income and accordingly this is a fit case for levy of penalty uls 271(1)( c ) of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 8.1 We further find that Ld. CIT(A) by placing reliance of the decision in the case of Ram Sewak Chandra 151 CTR 294 (All) and Gurbachan Lal 250 ITR 157 (Del.) has held that in a case of long term capital gain only declared in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, burden is on the assessee to prove that there was no concealment of income or of true particulars. Hence, further held that angle of concealment is more than established and therefore, upheld the penalty of Rs. 31,800/-. 4 8.2 We fu…