CIT v. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty

246 ITR 121High Court2000#5234 most cited

What is CIT v. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty authority for?

For a penalty under section 271(1)(c) to be levied, there must be a definite finding by the Assessing Officer that the assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. The mere revision of income or addition made during assessment does not automatically warrant a penalty.

22

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. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty · section 271(1)(c) · penalty · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · definite finding of concealment · discretion to levy penalty

Issues it is cited on

section 253(1)(a)section 276cbona fide mistakesection 275furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomefurnishing inaccurate particularssection 271(l)(c)penalty u/s 271(1)(c)penalty under section 271(1)(c)concealment of incomesection 274section 271(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VARANASI BENCH, VARANASI (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. 2015-16 Raees Alam Siddqui, vs. Dy. CIT, Qazi Tola, Ghazipur, U.P. Range-1, Varanasi PAN: AICPS0379L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. Arvind Shukla, Advocate Revenue by: Smt. Amandeep Kaur, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 09.10.2025 Date of pronouncement: 31.12.2025 O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC confirming the penalty under section 271…

Monish Ranjan Dasgupta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 61(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 2447/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

…ticulars. The penalty was permissible under the law on the date on which the offence of concealment of income was committed, that is to say, on the date of the offending return. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty [2000] 246 ITR 121 has held that under section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regards the quantum of the penalty there is a discretion. Of greater importance is the necessity for a definite finding that there is concealment, as without such a finding of concea…

Amitabha Sanyal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-58(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

ITA 359/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Nov 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amitabha Sanyal, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 254(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…ticulars. The penalty was permissible under the law on the date on which the offence of concealment of income was committed, that is to say, on the date of the offending return. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty [2000] 246 ITR 121 has held that under section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regards the quantum of the penalty there is a discretion. Of greater importance is the necessity for a definite finding that there is concealment, as without such a finding of concea…

Amit Khemka, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 43(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 636/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 68

…n made or part of the addition sustained in appeal. In assessment, addition can be made on the basis of presumption. But, in penalty, the Assessing Officer has to establish that there is conscious concealment. 17.2 In CIT v. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty [2000] 246 ITR 121 (Mad.) it has been held that under section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regards the quantum of the penalty there is a discretion. Of greater importance is the necessity for a definite finding that there is concealment, as without such a fi…

Amit Khemka, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 43(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 635/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 68

…n made or part of the addition sustained in appeal. In assessment, addition can be made on the basis of presumption. But, in penalty, the Assessing Officer has to establish that there is conscious concealment. 17.2 In CIT v. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty [2000] 246 ITR 121 (Mad.) it has been held that under section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regards the quantum of the penalty there is a discretion. Of greater importance is the necessity for a definite finding that there is concealment, as without such a fi…

Kalipada Saha, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward-24(3), Hooghly.

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1191/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…ticulars. A penalty proceeding, therefore, can be initiated only after an assessment order has been made which finds such concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 4. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty [2000] 246 ITR 121 has held that under section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regards the quantum of the penalty there is a discretion. Of greater importance is the necessity for a definite finding that there is concealment, as without such a finding of concea…

Kalipada Saha, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward-24(3), Hooghly.

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1190/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…ticulars. A penalty proceeding, therefore, can be initiated only after an assessment order has been made which finds such concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 4. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty [2000] 246 ITR 121 has held that under section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regards the quantum of the penalty there is a discretion. Of greater importance is the necessity for a definite finding that there is concealment, as without such a finding of concea…

Kalipada Saha, Hoohly vs. ITO, Ward-24(3), Hooghly.

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1189/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…ticulars. A penalty proceeding, therefore, can be initiated only after an assessment order has been made which finds such concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 4. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty [2000] 246 ITR 121 has held that under section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regards the quantum of the penalty there is a discretion. Of greater importance is the necessity for a definite finding that there is concealment, as without such a finding of concea…

Kalipada Saha, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward-24(3), Hooghly

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1188/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…ticulars. A penalty proceeding, therefore, can be initiated only after an assessment order has been made which finds such concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 4. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty [2000] 246 ITR 121 has held that under section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regards the quantum of the penalty there is a discretion. Of greater importance is the necessity for a definite finding that there is concealment, as without such a finding of concea…

Vasimkhan Hamidkhan Pathan, Dang vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Navsari

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.704/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Vasimkhan Hamidkhan Pathan Income Tax Officer Ward-5, Navsari, Income Ta Office, Charpool, O Main Bazar, At & Po Waghai Vs. Awabaug, Navsari-396445 Tal, Dang-394730 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bptpp 6081 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…ssessee has concealed his income; rather Assessing Officer has accepted the returned income filed by assessee, as it is, (in response to notice u/s 147 of the Act). We note that Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty [2000] 246 ITR 121 has held that under section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the ITA No.704/SRT/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 Vasimkhan H Pathan discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regards the quantum of the penalty there is a discretion. Of greater importance is the necessity for a definite finding that ther…

J C Antiques and Crafts, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle-7, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…ACIT, ITAT, Jaipur Bench 13 J C Antiques & Crafts, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-07, Jaipur (Dated 20.01.1997) Simply on the basis of assessee’s agreeing to addition penalty cannot be sustained. Revenue must prove measrea. CIT V. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty [2000] 246 ITR 121 (Mad.) Mere revision of income to a higher figure by the assessing authority does not automatically warrant an inference of concealment of income. It is submitted that ld.AO has relied upon various decisions, which are factually distinguishable insofar as in all the cases the additional income surrendered was supported by specific documentary evi…

The DCIT-1(3)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. M/S Fern Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1402/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 139Section 143Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

…ead to an inference that assessee had concealed his income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. These principles got settled from the decisions in the case of CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal (251 ITR 9 SC), CIT vs. K. R. Chinni Krishna Chetty (246 ITR 121 Mad) and CIT vs. Ajaib Singh & Co. (253 ITR 630 P&H). In the case of Suresh Chandra Mittal (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that High Court was justified in holding that no penalty could be levied where the Department simply rested its conclusion on the act of voluntary surrender done by the assessee in good faith. In the case of K. R. Chinni…

Vinod (Ratan) Suhalka, Udaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 241/JODH/2019[2007-08]Status: PendingITAT Jodhpur05 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…sions cited by the assessee are concerned, they either do not pertain to search cases or were rendered before the insertion of Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c), as discussed below 1.Varkay Chacko Vis CIT 203 ITR 885 (SC) 2.K.R. CHinni Krishna Chetty (2000) 246 ITR 121 n the instant case penalty is being upheld in light of the deeming provisions of Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c), applicable specifically in cases where a search has been conducted. However, in the above two cases, relied upon by the assessee, there was no search therefore the decisions have no application at all to the instant case. 3.CIT Vi…

Shri Jai Hind Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-5(4), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 146/JPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…e reported by the assessee does not by itself lead to the inference that there had been concealment. In this regard, we draw 19 ITA 146/JP/2021_ Shri Jain Hind Agarwal Vs ITO strength from the decision in the case of CIT VS. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty (2000) 246 ITR 121 (Mad.). 11. We also observed that it is a case where the assessee has disclosed all the material facts for the purposes of assessment. The A.O. has applied the provision of section 145(3) merely on ground of non maintenance of stock register or kachha bills. Kachha bills are subject to verification. However despite this the A.O. rejected the boo…

Kamala Shiva Kumar, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Kamala Shiva Kumar, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Secunderabad. Ward – 10(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Apkpk 1463 N (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/05/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Ay 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Cit(A) - 6, Hyderabad’S Order, Dated 12/01/2018 Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ; In Short “The Act”.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…is well-settled law that for estimated addition, no penalty is leviable. The particulars of sale of plots were also disclosed in the return of income filed by the assessee. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty [2000] 246 ITR 121/[2002] 120 Taxman 871 held that 'Mere revision of income to a higher figure by assessing authority does not automatically warrant inference of concealment of income'. 11. Considering the above discussion,. we are of. the view that learned CIT(A) had properly appreciated the facts and material on record and correctly cancelled the penalty on this…

DCIT CC-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ruby Mills Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3958/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit Central Circle 8(4) Vs. M/S. Ruby Mills Ltd., Room No.658, 6Th Floor 11Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan Ruby House, J.K. Sawant M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Marg, Dadar (W) Mumbai – 400 028 Pan/Gir No.Aaact0220G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

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

…atel 261 ITR 216(Guj) > CIT vs. Shivnarayanjamnalal& Co. 232 ITR 311 (UP). > Navjivan Oil Mills Vs. CIT [252 ITR 417 (Guj)] > CIT Vs. Ravail Singh & Co. [254 ITR 191 (P&H)] > CIT Vs. Dhillon Rice Mills [256 ITR 447 (P&H)] > CIT vs. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty; 246 ITR 121 > CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Co. 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) > CIT vs. Rahamat Khan Birbal Khan Badruddin& Party (1999) 240 ITR 778 (Raj) > CIT vs. B.D. Ramchandra (1984) 150 ITR 242 (Bom) > CIT Vs. Aero Traders Pvt, Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Del) 9.8 As regards disallowance of donation is concerned, I am inclined to agree with the appellant that the omissio…

Shri Harish Tambi, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 970/JPR/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2020AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena , Addl. CIT- DR
Section 271(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh ,u-ds-lSuh] mik/;{k ,o lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI N.K. SAINI, V.P. & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.970 to 974/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@A.Ys : 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 The DCIT cuke Shri Harish Tambi Vs. C-33, Sikar House, Outside Central Circle-1 Chandpole Gate, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABYPT 8364 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.L. Poddar, Advocate jktLo dh vksj ls…

Shri Vishnu Tambi, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 965/JPR/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2020AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena , Addl. CIT- DR
Section 271(1)

…r views implies some deliberate act on the part of the assessee in withholding the true facts from the authorities. On this proposition, we draw strength from the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty (2000) 246 ITR 121 (Mad). Therefore, keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that in this case the additions were made on the basis of estimation and as discussed in the cases referred above, the penalty cannot be levied on the basis of estimated additions. Therefore, we allow this ground of appeal r…

Transwind Communication Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, (OSD), Circle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1538/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh Kumar Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, Sr. D.R
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…n relation to the company, which may please be noted.”………. Reliance was also placed on different judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court including the case CIT-vs-Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. and CIT-vs-K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty reported in [2000] 246 ITR 121 (Mad) passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court as well as the order passed by the Chennai Tribunal in the matter of Gem Granites (Karnataka) –vs-DCIT reported in [2009] 18 DTR 358. The contention of the assessee was this that merely because the additions confirmed does not ipso facto attract penalty provision. Penalty provision requires a strict a…

Smt. Shipra Jain, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the penalty so levied u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby deleted and appeals are allowed

ITA 922/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri J. C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…income is on the Revenue and it is only on discharge of primary burden that secondary burden of proof would shift on the assessee. Accordingly, penalty was deleted on addition made on the basis of valuation report. • CIT Vs. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty (2000) 246 ITR 121 (Mad.) (HC) The Hon’ble Madras High Court held that penalty under sec. 271(1)(c) could not be levied on assessee whose income had been assessed at a higher figure solely on the basis of the valuer’s report which showed the cost of construction at a figure higher than the one reported by the assessee. Smt. Shipra Jain & Sh. Sapna Jain, Jaipur vs.…

CIT v. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty (246 ITR 121) — Cited in 22 Judgments | BharatTax