CIT v. J.K.A. Subramania Chettiar

110 ITR 602High Court1977#10076 most cited

What is CIT v. J.K.A. Subramania Chettiar authority for?

Filing a revised return under section 139(5) before detection of concealment of income or issuance of a notice under section 148 precludes the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c). A revised return filed under these circumstances replaces the original return.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Also referred to as

CIT v. J.K.A. Subramania Chettiar · 110 ITR 602 · section 139(5) · section 271(1)(c) · revised return · penalty for concealment · notice u/s 148

Judgments citing CIT v. J.K.A. Subramania Chettiar

R.S. Tradelink Pvt.Ltd., Surat vs. The ACIT., Circle-4, Surat

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

ITA 2130/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2130/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. R.S. Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Plot No.17, Magdalla Port Road, Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Surat. Magdalla, Surat-395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr6607A (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah - CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra - CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…inding that there was no concealment of particulars of income by the assessee. 6. Mr. Jayaraman submitted that to support the conclusion of the Tribunal in this case would be to go against an earlier decision of this court in CIT v. Subramania Chettiar [1977] 110 ITR 602 (Mad). In that case, an assessee against whom penalty action was started under s. 271(1)(c) contended that penalty proceedings should not be proceeded with since he had moved the Commissioner of Income-tax for relief under s. 271(4A) of the Act. This objection was overruled, and a penalty was levied under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. This court uphel…

Shri Ghanshyam Dungarbhai Sutariya, Surat vs. The ACIT, Circle-8, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2971/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ghanshyam Dungarbhai Sutaria, Vs. Acit, Circle-8, H.No. 1, 1St Floor, Sahaj Park Row Surat House, Hira Baug Circle, Vallabhacharya Road, Near Kailashdham Society, Ashwanikumar Road, Surat-395008 (Pan: Akkpp9318E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ed (Ker) 132 ITR 623 > Mahavir Metal Works Vs CIT (P&H) ~ > Badri Prasad Om Prakash Vs CIT (Raj) 163 ITR 440 > S.R. Arulprakasam Vs Prema Malini Vasan, ITO (Mad) 163 ITR 487 > F.C. Agarwal Vs CIT (Gauhati) 102 ITR 408 > CIT Vs J.K.A. Subramania Chettiar (Mad) 110 ITR 602 > Ravi & Co. Vs ACIT (Mad) 271 ITR 286 5.3 It is an obligatory duty cast upon income derived from any source under various heads and indicate the income under each head, which is chargeable to income-tax, after making the permissible deductions. Disclosure of income would be disclosure of particulars of income, which a person is duty bound to di…

Shri Bilas Chand, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward1(1), Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 399/ASR/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Apr 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 399/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. J. K. Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 24Section 80CSection 80E

…l return. A return, admitting additional income, would accordingly be of no consequence where filed on the detection of 6 Bilas Chand v. ITO the escaped income (viz. Mahavir Metal Works v. CIT [1973] 92 ITR 513 (P&H); CIT v. J.K.A. Subramania Chettiar [1977] 110 ITR 602 (Mad)), as apparently obtains in the instant case. The assessee, however, could argue that he having admitted his ‘mistake’ by filing a return on 08.8.2017 withdrawing the impugned claims, the same, being prior to the issue of notice u/s. 148, be regarded as voluntary, saving penalty. Another aspect that would arise for consideration is if the as…

Sh. Subash Chander, Udhampur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Udhampur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 143/ASR/2017[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Mar 2019AY 1993-94

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No.142 & 143/Asr/2017 Assessment Years: 1992-93 & 1993-94

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Arora (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148(1)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…same would only be upon detection by the Department. Reference in this regard be made to the decision in Rajesh Chawla v. CIT [2006] 203 CTR 209 (P&H) [154 Taxman 364], rendered relying on several decisions, including CIT v. J.K.A. Subramania Chettiar [1977] 110 ITR 602 (Mad), also quoting there-from. Further, that penalty is to be levied with reference to original return is, again, well settled (CIT vs. Onkar Saran & Sons [1992] 195 ITR 01 (SC)). The penalty imposed for both the years is, as afore-stated, at the minimum rate. No interference, in my view, is accordingly called for. I decide accordingly. 4. In t…

Sh. Subash Chander, Udhampur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Udhampur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 142/ASR/2017[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Mar 2019AY 1992-93

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No.142 & 143/Asr/2017 Assessment Years: 1992-93 & 1993-94

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Arora (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148(1)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…same would only be upon detection by the Department. Reference in this regard be made to the decision in Rajesh Chawla v. CIT [2006] 203 CTR 209 (P&H) [154 Taxman 364], rendered relying on several decisions, including CIT v. J.K.A. Subramania Chettiar [1977] 110 ITR 602 (Mad), also quoting there-from. Further, that penalty is to be levied with reference to original return is, again, well settled (CIT vs. Onkar Saran & Sons [1992] 195 ITR 01 (SC)). The penalty imposed for both the years is, as afore-stated, at the minimum rate. No interference, in my view, is accordingly called for. I decide accordingly. 4. In t…

R.Vasuki, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 899/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mrs. Veni Raj, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 03.08.2017
Section 131Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…ng Director of the company as to the share applications being unexplained. The law in the matter is well-settled, viz. Ravi & Co. v. Asst. CIT [2004] 271 ITR 286 (Mad); S.R.Arulprakasam v. ITO [1987] 163 ITR 487 (Mad); CIT v. J.K.A. Subramania Chettiar [1977] 110 ITR 602 (Mad); Ayyasami Nadar & Bros. v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 565 (Mad), to cite some. The assessee was, accordingly, bound to explain the additional income per her ‘revised return’ or, per contra, the omission of the said disclosure per her original return, satisfying the conditions of Explanation 1 to s. 271(1)(c), even as explained by the Hon'ble Apex Co…

Ponmani Suresh, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1011/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1011/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mrs. Ponmani Suresh, The Deputy Commissioner Of Old No.12A, New No.24, V. Income-Tax, Swarna Mangalam, East Road, Non Corporate Ward-2, West Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai 600 035. Pan Aalpp7516R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Ilavarasi, JCIT
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 40A(3)

…result of enquiry, then it is not a return filed as per sec.139(5) of the Act. In support of his argument, ld.A.R placed reliance in the following case laws. i) F.C.Agarwal Vs. CIT in (1976) 102 ITR 408 (Gau.) ii) CIT Vs. J.K.A. subramania Chettiar (1977) 110 ITR 602(Mad.) iii) Sunanda Ram Deka Vs. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 988(Gau.) - - 9 ITA 1011/Mds/17 iv) CIT Vs. Shree Krishna Gyanoday Sugar Ltd., in [1990] 186 ITR 541 (Cal) v) CIT Vs. J. K. A. Subramania Chettiar in [1977] 110 ITR 602 (Mad) Further, he submitted that provisions of the section 292 BB cannot be helped to the Department. He prayed to quash th…

Sanjay Chugh vs. ACIT Circle-37 (1)

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 330/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishidr. Sanjay Chugh, Vs. Acit, W-8, Ground Floor, Circle-37(1), Gk-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Amitosh Moitra, CA
Section 133ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…utually exclusive. If a case falls within the scope of section 139(5), there would be no chance for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of original return. This view has been confirmed by Madras High court in case of CIT v. J.K.A. Subramania Chettiar (110 ITR 602). The similar view has been taken by P & H High Court in case of CIT v. Gururam Das Fruit and Vegetable Agency (254 ITR 361) wherein it was held that where the assessee has filed revised return disclosing his entire income and paid taxes thereon before the issuance of notice u/s.148, no penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is leviable. The jurisdictional high c…

ACIT 8(3) (OSD), Mumbai vs. Confidence Petroleum Inida Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee may be treated as partly allowed

ITA 4276/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 Acit 8(3)(Osd) Confidence Petroleum India R.No.210 Ltd, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Gate No.2, D.R. Container, S Vs. M.K. Rd. Jijamata, Nagar, Mahul Chembur, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400074 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No.Aaacd3658C Assessment Year: 2006-07 Confidence Petroleum India Acit 8(3)(Osd) Ltd, बनाम/ R.No.210 Gate No.2, D.R. Container, S Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Jijamata, Nagar, Mahul M.K. Rd. Chembur, Mumbai-400074 Mumbai-400020 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aajcs 6315G

Section 143(3)Section 144

…d. Esthuri Aswathiah v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 539 (SC) and section 139(5) would apply only when there is omission or wrong statement which has a bearing on assessment - Halima Fancy Stores v. CIT [1976] 104 ITR 190 (Mad.), CIT v. J.K.A. Subramania Chettiar [1977] 110 ITR 602 (Mad.), Addl. CIT v. Radhey Shyam [1980] 123 ITR 125 (All.). To file a revised return, no prior permission is required - Waman Padmanabh Dande v. CIT [1952] 22 ITR 339 (Nag.). According to the plain language of section 139(5), it would apply when return of income is filed pursuant to section 139(1) or under section 142(1). 2.3.7 Therefore, the p…

Confidence Petroleum India Limited, Mumbai vs. I.T.O. 8(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee may be treated as partly allowed

ITA 1608/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 Acit 8(3)(Osd) Confidence Petroleum India R.No.210 Ltd, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Gate No.2, D.R. Container, S Vs. M.K. Rd. Jijamata, Nagar, Mahul Chembur, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400074 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No.Aaacd3658C Assessment Year: 2006-07 Confidence Petroleum India Acit 8(3)(Osd) Ltd, बनाम/ R.No.210 Gate No.2, D.R. Container, S Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Jijamata, Nagar, Mahul M.K. Rd. Chembur, Mumbai-400074 Mumbai-400020 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aajcs 6315G

Section 143(3)Section 144

…d. Esthuri Aswathiah v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 539 (SC) and section 139(5) would apply only when there is omission or wrong statement which has a bearing on assessment - Halima Fancy Stores v. CIT [1976] 104 ITR 190 (Mad.), CIT v. J.K.A. Subramania Chettiar [1977] 110 ITR 602 (Mad.), Addl. CIT v. Radhey Shyam [1980] 123 ITR 125 (All.). To file a revised return, no prior permission is required - Waman Padmanabh Dande v. CIT [1952] 22 ITR 339 (Nag.). According to the plain language of section 139(5), it would apply when return of income is filed pursuant to section 139(1) or under section 142(1). 2.3.7 Therefore, the p…

CIT v. J.K.A. Subramania Chettiar (110 ITR 602) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax