CIT v. M.M. Gujamgadi

290 ITR 168High Court2007#8950 most cited

What is CIT v. M.M. Gujamgadi authority for?

A penalty is not automatically leviable merely because an addition to income was made during assessment proceedings or because a revised return was filed. The facts of the addition and the assessee's conduct must be considered.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. M.M. Gujamagadi · 290 ITR 168 · penalty not automatic · addition to income · revised return · assessment proceedings · conduct of assessee · section 271(1)(c) · section 270A

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 153CSection 270ASection 132Section 270AASection 139(1)Section 139Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

mis-reporting of incomesection 270aasection 270a(9)under-reporting of incomesection 271cpenalty under section 270apenalty u/s 270apenalty under section 271(1)(c)section 270penalty u/s 271(1)(c)concealment of incomedocuments seized

Judgments citing CIT v. M.M. Gujamgadi

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1840/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…er. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant, including the decisions in Dilip Shroff reported in 291 ITR 519, Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory reported in 35 taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka) and M.M. Gujamagadi reported in 290 ITR 168, and observed that these decisions were rendered in the context of penalty proceedings being independent and penalty not being automatic. However, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the facts of the appellant’s case were distinguishable. 9.2 With regard to the contention of assessee that penalty cannot be levied where income is determined on an estimate b…

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1839/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…er. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant, including the decisions in Dilip Shroff reported in 291 ITR 519, Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory reported in 35 taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka) and M.M. Gujamagadi reported in 290 ITR 168, and observed that these decisions were rendered in the context of penalty proceedings being independent and penalty not being automatic. However, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the facts of the appellant’s case were distinguishable. 9.2 With regard to the contention of assessee that penalty cannot be levied where income is determined on an estimate b…

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1838/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…er. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant, including the decisions in Dilip Shroff reported in 291 ITR 519, Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory reported in 35 taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka) and M.M. Gujamagadi reported in 290 ITR 168, and observed that these decisions were rendered in the context of penalty proceedings being independent and penalty not being automatic. However, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the facts of the appellant’s case were distinguishable. 9.2 With regard to the contention of assessee that penalty cannot be levied where income is determined on an estimate b…

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1837/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…er. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant, including the decisions in Dilip Shroff reported in 291 ITR 519, Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory reported in 35 taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka) and M.M. Gujamagadi reported in 290 ITR 168, and observed that these decisions were rendered in the context of penalty proceedings being independent and penalty not being automatic. However, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the facts of the appellant’s case were distinguishable. 9.2 With regard to the contention of assessee that penalty cannot be levied where income is determined on an estimate b…

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1836/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…er. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant, including the decisions in Dilip Shroff reported in 291 ITR 519, Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory reported in 35 taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka) and M.M. Gujamagadi reported in 290 ITR 168, and observed that these decisions were rendered in the context of penalty proceedings being independent and penalty not being automatic. However, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the facts of the appellant’s case were distinguishable. 9.2 With regard to the contention of assessee that penalty cannot be levied where income is determined on an estimate b…

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1835/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…er. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant, including the decisions in Dilip Shroff reported in 291 ITR 519, Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory reported in 35 taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka) and M.M. Gujamagadi reported in 290 ITR 168, and observed that these decisions were rendered in the context of penalty proceedings being independent and penalty not being automatic. However, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the facts of the appellant’s case were distinguishable. 9.2 With regard to the contention of assessee that penalty cannot be levied where income is determined on an estimate b…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Nevales Networks Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4827/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-14(1)(1), M/S. Nevales Networks Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, The Capital, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Level 7, Plot-C70, M.K.Road, G Block, Mumbai-400020. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aadcn1748A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Piyush Chhajed Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChhajedFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…cause the assessee has filed a revised return and withdraw some claim of depreciation penalty is not leviable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. This Court in the case of GUJAMGADI reported in 290 ITR 168, has held that every addition to income by the Income Tax Officer will not automatically attract levy of penalty. Similar view has also been taken by this Court in the case of BALAJI VEGETABLE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED reported in 290 ITR 173. The facts of the addition has to be looked into and the conduct of the assessee may also be taken into co…

Shyam Sunder Kansal, U.P vs. Ward 2(3)(2), U.P

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 139/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 50C

…atement in short period. The above replies were submitted sue moto and not against any query of AO on 30/06/2014 and on 11/08/2014 while order was passed on 30/12/2014 . On a similar issue the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs M. M. Gujamgadi 290 ITR 168 (supra) held as under: "A reading of sections 271 and 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Explanation appended thereto manifestly makes it clear that every addition of income by the Income-tax Officer will not automatically attract levy of penalty. It is clear from Explanation 1(B) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act that while computing t…

Sri Amit Kumar Loya, Gulbarga vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Belagavi

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

ITA 38/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri M.K. Biju, D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 50C

…g the course of penalty proceedings. Accordingly, she contended that the AO was not justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld A.R relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. M M Gujamgadi (2007)(290 ITR 168), wherein the deletion of penalty by Tribunal was upheld by observing that the assessee has agreed for addition of cash credits, since he could not secure attendance of the creditors and hence the explanation so given cannot be said to be not bonafide. 6. On the contrary, the Ld D.R supported the order passed by Ld CIT(A). He submitted that the…

Income Tax Officer, Bhiwadi vs. Shri Pratap Singh Tanwar, Jaipur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1027/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…assed by AO. It was held that assessee had duly disclosed gifts and there was no concealment. However, assessee failed to produce alleged donor. Assessee's conduct was not contumacious to warrant levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). • CIT Vs. M.M. Gujamgadi (2007) 290 ITR 168 (Kar.) (HC) 17 ITO, Bhiwadi Vs. Sh. Pratap Singh Tanwar, Alwar A reading of ss. 271 and 271(1)(c) and the Explanation appended thereto manifestly makes it clear that every addition of income by the ITO will not automatically attract levy of penalty. It is clear from Expln. 1(B) to sec. 271(1)(c) that while computing the total income of an asses…

M/S. B.R. Goyal Construction Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The ITO 5(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

ITA 81/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.81/Ind/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 B.R. Goyal Construction Pvt. Ltd Indore Pan – Aaccb – 8928K :: अपीलाथ" /Appellant Vs Ito 5(1) :: ""यथ" /Respondent Indore Shri Ajay Tulsiyan "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By Shri Mohd. Javed राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By 12.1.2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख Date Of Hearing 19.1.2017 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख Date Of Pronouncement

…that there was any concealment – This is a finding of fact – There is no illegality in same – The tax case has no merit and hence dismissed.” We are also supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. M.M. Gujamgadi; 290 ITR 168 wherein it was held as under :- “Penalty under s. 271(1)(c), Expln. 1 – Concealment – Unproved cash credits – Explanation of the assessee that the impugned amount wasborrowed by him from 10 B.R. Goyal various creditors – However, despite his best efforts, assessee could not secure the attendance of the creditors to substantiate his claim bef…

The Commissioner of Income Tax Gulbarga vs. M/S Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/2564/2005HC Karnataka13 Dec 2012

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

Section 260Section 260A

…the assessee has filed a revised return and withdraw some claim of depreciation penalty is not leviable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. This Court in the case of GUJAMGADI reported in 290 ITR 168, has held that every addition to income by the Income Tax Officer will not 57 automatically attract levy of penalty. Similar view has also been taken by this Court in the case of BALAJI VEGETABLE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED reported in 290 ITR 173. The facts of the addition has to be looked into and the conduct of the as…

CIT v. M.M. Gujamgadi (290 ITR 168) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax