CIT v. M. Pachamuthu

295 ITR 502High Court2007#7825 most cited

What is CIT v. M. Pachamuthu authority for?

An assessee's agreement to an addition does not prove concealment, as such agreement may be for reasons such as avoiding litigation or commercial expediency. Voluntary surrender without corroborative material cannot sustain a penalty.

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. M. Pachamuthu · 295 ITR 502 · concealment of income · penalty · voluntary surrender · addition · corroborative material · commercial expediency · avoidance of litigation

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 153ASection 139(1)Section 153CSection 270ASection 143(3)Section 271AABSection 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271aabnon-compete feedeletion of penaltywholly and exclusively for businesssection 271aabcorporate guaranteebusiness expediencydumb documentssection 271aasection 271aconcealment of incomepenalty under section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing CIT v. M. Pachamuthu

DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Viraj Profiles Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 890/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…(168 ITR 705) held that an assessee’s agreement to an addition does not prove concealment; there may be many reasons for such an agreement, including avoidance of litigation or commercial expediency. This principle has been reiterated in CIT v. M. Pachamuthu (295 ITR 502), CIT v. Rajiv Garg (313 ITR 256), and by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Haji Gaffar Haji Dada Chini (169 ITR 33), which all hold that voluntary surrender, without corroborative material, cannot sustain penalty. 54. Further, coordinate benches such as in Suresh B. Dedhia and Smt. Dipikadevi Todi have clarified that legal infirmities in the very…

DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Viraj Profiles Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 889/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 37Section 69ASection 69C

…(168 ITR 705) held that an assessee's agreement to an addition does not prove concealment; there may be many reasons for such an agreement, including avoidance of litigation or commercial expediency. This principle has been reiterated in CIT v. M. Pachamuthu (295 ITR 502), CIT v. Rajiv Garg (313 ITR 256), and by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Haji Gaffar Haji Dada Chini (169 ITR 33), which all hold that voluntary surrender, without corroborative material, cannot sustain penalty. 54. Further, coordinate benches such as in Suresh B. Dedhia and Smt. Dipikadevi Todi have clarified that legal infirmities in the very…

DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Viraj Profiles Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 888/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…(168 ITR 705) held that an assessee’s agreement to an addition does not prove concealment; there may be many reasons for such an agreement, including avoidance of litigation or commercial expediency. This principle has been reiterated in CIT v. M. Pachamuthu (295 ITR 502), CIT v. Rajiv Garg (313 ITR 256), and by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Haji Gaffar Haji Dada Chini (169 ITR 33), which all hold that voluntary surrender, without corroborative material, cannot sustain penalty. 54. Further, coordinate benches such as in Suresh B. Dedhia and Smt. Dipikadevi Todi have clarified that legal infirmities in the very…

DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai vs. Viraj Profiles Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 872/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai 'F' Bench M/S Viraj Profiles Private Limited Summary Of Penalty Appeals Sr. No. Nature Of Addition/ Disallowance Ay 2011-12 U/S 271(1)(C) Ay 2013-14 U/S 271(1)(C) Ay 2015-16 U/S 271(1)(C) Ay 2017-18 U/S 271Aab Ay 2018-19 U/S 271Aab (Amt In Inr) Total Addition Made U/S 143(3)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 37Section 69ASection 69C

…(168 ITR 705) held that an assessee's agreement to an addition does not prove concealment; there may be many reasons for such an agreement, including avoidance of litigation or commercial expediency. This principle has been reiterated in CIT v. M. Pachamuthu (295 ITR 502), CIT v. Rajiv Garg (313 ITR 256), and by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Haji Gaffar Haji Dada Chini (169 ITR 33), which all hold that voluntary surrender, without corroborative material, cannot sustain penalty. 54. Further, coordinate benches such as in Suresh B. Dedhia and Smt. Dipikadevi Todi have clarified that legal infirmities in the ver…

DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai vs. Viraj Profiles Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 871/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…(168 ITR 705) held that an assessee’s agreement to an addition does not prove concealment; there may be many reasons for such an agreement, including avoidance of litigation or commercial expediency. This principle has been reiterated in CIT v. M. Pachamuthu (295 ITR 502), CIT v. Rajiv Garg (313 ITR 256), and by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Haji Gaffar Haji Dada Chini (169 ITR 33), which all hold that voluntary surrender, without corroborative material, cannot sustain penalty. 54. Further, coordinate benches such as in Suresh B. Dedhia and Smt. Dipikadevi Todi have clarified that legal infirmities in the very…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Kolkata vs. Radheshyam Agarwala, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assesse are dismissed

ITA 2607/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.2603 - 2607/KOL/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा /AYrs. : 2016-2017 to 2020-2021) DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata Vs Radheshyam Agarwala, 2B, Tarachand Dutt Street, 2nd Floor, Kolkata PAN No. :ACZPA 7312 E AND Cross Objection Nos.27-31/KOL/2024 (Arising out of ITA Nos.2603-2607/Kol/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा /AYrs. : 2016-2017 to 2020-2021) Radheshyam Agarwala, Vs DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata 2B, Tarachand Dutt Street, 2nd Floor, Kolkata PAN No. :ACZPA 7312 E (अपीलधर्थी /Appel…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Kolkata vs. Radheshyam Agarwala, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assesse are dismissed

ITA 2606/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.2603 - 2607/KOL/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा /AYrs. : 2016-2017 to 2020-2021) DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata Vs Radheshyam Agarwala, 2B, Tarachand Dutt Street, 2nd Floor, Kolkata PAN No. :ACZPA 7312 E AND Cross Objection Nos.27-31/KOL/2024 (Arising out of ITA Nos.2603-2607/Kol/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा /AYrs. : 2016-2017 to 2020-2021) Radheshyam Agarwala, Vs DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata 2B, Tarachand Dutt Street, 2nd Floor, Kolkata PAN No. :ACZPA 7312 E (अपीलधर्थी /Appel…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Kolkata vs. Radheshyam Agarwala, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assesse are dismissed

ITA 2605/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.2603 - 2607/KOL/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा /AYrs. : 2016-2017 to 2020-2021) DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata Vs Radheshyam Agarwala, 2B, Tarachand Dutt Street, 2nd Floor, Kolkata PAN No. :ACZPA 7312 E AND Cross Objection Nos.27-31/KOL/2024 (Arising out of ITA Nos.2603-2607/Kol/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा /AYrs. : 2016-2017 to 2020-2021) Radheshyam Agarwala, Vs DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata 2B, Tarachand Dutt Street, 2nd Floor, Kolkata PAN No. :ACZPA 7312 E (अपीलधर्थी /Appel…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Kolkata vs. Radheshyam Agarwala, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assesse are dismissed

ITA 2604/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.2603 - 2607/KOL/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा /AYrs. : 2016-2017 to 2020-2021) DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata Vs Radheshyam Agarwala, 2B, Tarachand Dutt Street, 2nd Floor, Kolkata PAN No. :ACZPA 7312 E AND Cross Objection Nos.27-31/KOL/2024 (Arising out of ITA Nos.2603-2607/Kol/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा /AYrs. : 2016-2017 to 2020-2021) Radheshyam Agarwala, Vs DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata 2B, Tarachand Dutt Street, 2nd Floor, Kolkata PAN No. :ACZPA 7312 E (अपीलधर्थी /Appel…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1) Kolkata, Kolkata vs. Radheshyam Agarwala, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assesse are dismissed

ITA 2603/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.2603 - 2607/KOL/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा /AYrs. : 2016-2017 to 2020-2021) DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata Vs Radheshyam Agarwala, 2B, Tarachand Dutt Street, 2nd Floor, Kolkata PAN No. :ACZPA 7312 E AND Cross Objection Nos.27-31/KOL/2024 (Arising out of ITA Nos.2603-2607/Kol/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा /AYrs. : 2016-2017 to 2020-2021) Radheshyam Agarwala, Vs DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata 2B, Tarachand Dutt Street, 2nd Floor, Kolkata PAN No. :ACZPA 7312 E (अपीलधर्थी /Appel…

Mothukuri Somabrahmam, Visakhapatnam vs. The Deputy. CIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 132/VIZ/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri T. Satyanandam, DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…revenue as perverse or based on irrelevant evidence or no evidence at all. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the provisions of s. 271(1) were not attracted was not erroneous." Similarly, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs. M. Pachamuthu 295 ITR 502 (Mad) held:- "Mere addition agreed to by the assessee during the course of survey would not empower the Assessing Officer to levy the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 -.. The fact that the assessee had agreed to additions to income was not proof of concealment." Even Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. M. G…

The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax., Visakhapatnam vs. Sri M. Somabrahmam, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 126/VIZ/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri T. Satyanandam, DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…revenue as perverse or based on irrelevant evidence or no evidence at all. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the provisions of s. 271(1) were not attracted was not erroneous." Similarly, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs. M. Pachamuthu 295 ITR 502 (Mad) held:- "Mere addition agreed to by the assessee during the course of survey would not empower the Assessing Officer to levy the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 -.. The fact that the assessee had agreed to additions to income was not proof of concealment." Even Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. M. G…

Navnitlal K Parikh, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-45, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6820/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Years: 2004-05 Mr. Navnitlal K. Parikh, Acit, F-2, 77 & 78 Gujrati Society Cc-45, बनाम/ Nehru Road, Vile Parle (E), Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400057 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pa No.:-Aaccp6245F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Shailesh Parmar Shri Suman Kumar-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 05/04/2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2017 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: Mr. Navnitlal K. Parikh

Section 139Section 15Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 5

…ssee has further submitted that the amount of gift was from the sale of flat, which has not been disputed by the Department. He has relied upon the decision of honourable Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. M. Pachamuthu reported in 295 ITR 502(Mad). 4.4 For the assessment year 2005-06, the learned A.R. of the assessee has submitted that the income was offered by the assessee voluntarily as the same cannot be added on the basis of the seized material which is a dumb document. The 3rd line of Mr. Navnitlal K. Parikh argument of the ld AR of the assessee is that the provisions of explana…

Options Developrs and Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT Ce Cir 22, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the ld

ITA 7129/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Options Developers & Acit, Central Circle-22, Builders, Room No.465, बनाम/ 10, Mithila Shopping Centre Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ground Floor, V. M. Road, M.K. Road, Juhu Scheme Vile Parle (W) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400049 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaafo6752F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Kothari Ms. Sudha Ramchandran-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 05/05/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 132Section 271A

…revenue as perverse or based on irrelevant evidence or no evidence at all. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the provisions of s. 271(1) were not attracted was not erroneous.” Similarly, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs. M. Pachamuthu 295 ITR 502 (Mad) held:- “Mere addition agreed to by the assessee during the course of survey would not empower the Assessing Officer to levy the penalty under section 271(1)© of the Income-tax Act, 1961 … The fact that the assessee had agreed to additions to income was not proof of concealment.” Even Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. M. Georg…

CIT v. M. Pachamuthu (295 ITR 502) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax