CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah (2008) 299 ITR 305 (Guj) (ii) CIT v. Radha KishanGoel

146 ITD 152Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2014#7668 most cited

What is CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah (2008) 299 ITR 305 (Guj) (ii) CIT v. Radha KishanGoel authority for?

Immunity from penalty under section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is available to an assessee when the failure leading to undisclosed income is attributable to the Revenue, not the assessee.

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah · section 271AAA · penalty · undisclosed income · immunity · Revenue's failure · assessee's eligibility

Judgments citing CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah (2008) 299 ITR 305 (Guj) (ii) CIT v. Radha KishanGoel

M/S. Benchmark Infotech (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3067/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, And Shri Deepesh Garg, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(1)(A)Section 153ASection 2Section 271Section 271A

…. After the director responded to question Nos.7 and 8, nothing further was asked and hence he cannot be faulted for not giving further details.” 4.9. Referring to the decision of Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Neerat Singal vs., ACIT [2014] 146 ITD 152 (Del.) he drew the attention of the Bench to the order of the Tribunal in the said decision at para-16 which reads as under : “16. In view of above facts of the present case wherefrom it is evident that during the course of search proceedings the authorized officer of the department had not raised any specific query regarding the manner in 12 I…

Shri Shri Basant Kumar Jain, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, the captioned appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 191/BIL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 191/Rpr/2016) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Baral, DR
Section 132(4)Section 271Section 271A

…n 271AAA of the Act and impose penalty @10% on undisclosed income. A reference was made to the decisions like CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah (2008) 299 ITR 305 (Guj.), Pr.CIT vs. Mukeshbhai Ramanlal Prajapati (2017) 398 ITR 170 (Guj.), Neeraj Singal vs. ACIT (2014) 146 ITD 152 (Del.), ACIT vs. Shreenarayan Sitaram Mundra (2017) 166 ITD 0047 and many more. He thus submitted that the CIT(A) has mis-directed himself in law in confirming the action of the AO. The learned counsel accordingly urged that the relief entitled under s.271AAA of the Act towards ITA No. 191/RPR/2016 (Basant Kumar Jain vs. DC IT) A.Y. 2012-13 - 4…

M/S. Siddharth Infratech P.Ltd, Jalgaon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 116/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 116/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Siddharth Infratech P. Ltd. 47, Ramdas Colony, Nr. Sagar Park, Jalgaon-425001. Pan : Aancs1550K .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

…e Tribunal in ITA No.1436/PN/2013 & Ors. for assessment year 2010-11 order dated 26.06.2015 wherein it has been observed by the Tribunal while observing the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Delhi Bench in the case of Neerat Singhal Vs. ACIT, 146 ITD 152 ( Delhi Trib.) that “ levy of penalty u/s.271AAA is not justified in absence of any query raised by the authorized officer during the course of recording of statement u/s.132(4) about the manner in which undisclosed income has been derived and about its substantiation.” The Pune Bench of the Tribunal had given relief to the assessee. 6.2 Reverti…

DCIT, Faridabad vs. Sh. Vikas Aggarwal, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1099/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142Section 153BSection 2Section 271

…Ld. Cff(A) on a consideration of the facts involved in this case, found that these facts are covered by various decisions of the Delhi benches of the Tribunal in the case of Sitaram Gupta vs. ACI'f in ITA No. 1835 and 1836 of 2013, Nceraj Singhal vs. ACI'f in 146 ITD 152, M/s Spaze tower private limited vs. DC IT in ITA No. 2296/del/2012 and the decisions of Chandigarh Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Munish Kumar Goyal 45 taxmann.com 563, ACI'f vs. Gian Chand Gupta in ITA numbers 1005 to 1007/Chd/2013 etc. By following the said decisions Ld. CIT(A) directed the deletion of the penalty. 8. We have gone through the…

DCIT, Faridabad vs. Sh. Pradeep Aggarwal, Gurgaon

In the result, Tax Appeals are dismissed

ITA 1100/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Central Circle- Ii, Pradeep Aggarwal, Faridabad. 26- P, Sector- 33, Vs. Gurgaon.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Raghnath, Sr. DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271A

…ntiated by the assessee. I find that the facts of the case at hand are covered by the various decisions. The Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi decide similar issue in favour of the assessee in Sita Ram Gupta vs. ACIT in ITA No.1835 & 1836 of 2103; Neeraj Singhal vs ACIT in 146 ITD 152; M/s Spaze Tower Pvt Ltd. vs DCIT in ITA no.2296/Del/2012. The Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal has also accepted assessee's contention in the cases viz ACIT vs. Munish Kumar Goyal reported in 4 Taxmann.com 563; ACIT. CC. Patiala vs. Gian Chand Gupta/ Mohinder Gupta/ Sanjay Kumar Gupta in ITA Nos. 1005/1006/1007/Chd/2013; DCIT Central Circle-2 Ch…

M/S Keti Sangam Infrastructure (I) Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT (Central), Indore

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

ITA 1341/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ochanadevi A. Agarwal, Suratvs Department Of Income Tax (vi) Smt. Raj Rani Gupta V/s DCIT Central (vii) Mothers Pride Education Personna P. Ltd. V/s DCIT Central (viii) Neeraj SingalVs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-13, New Delhi [2014] 146 ITD 152 (DEL) (ix) ITAT Indore Bench in the case of Shri TikamchandGarg and Others which also belong to Kalyan Group in ITA No. 1027 to 1033/Ind/2016 vide order dated 28.06.2017 (i) Decision of co-ordinate bench of Nagpur Tribunal in the case of Concrete Developers V/s ACIT reported in (2013) 34 taxmann.com 62 (Nagpur-Trib.) (ii) Decision of Honourable C…

M/S Shree Coal Enterprises (I) Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. The ACIT 3(1), Bhopal

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

ITA 1337/IND/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ochanadevi A. Agarwal, Suratvs Department Of Income Tax (vi) Smt. Raj Rani Gupta V/s DCIT Central (vii) Mothers Pride Education Personna P. Ltd. V/s DCIT Central (viii) Neeraj SingalVs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-13, New Delhi [2014] 146 ITD 152 (DEL) (ix) ITAT Indore Bench in the case of Shri TikamchandGarg and Others which also belong to Kalyan Group in ITA No. 1027 to 1033/Ind/2016 vide order dated 28.06.2017 (i) Decision of co-ordinate bench of Nagpur Tribunal in the case of Concrete Developers V/s ACIT reported in (2013) 34 taxmann.com 62 (Nagpur-Trib.) (ii) Decision of Honourable C…

M/S Keti Sangham Infrastruture (I) Limited, Indore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Indore

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

ITA 516/IND/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ochanadevi A. Agarwal, Suratvs Department Of Income Tax (vi) Smt. Raj Rani Gupta V/s DCIT Central (vii) Mothers Pride Education Personna P. Ltd. V/s DCIT Central (viii) Neeraj SingalVs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-13, New Delhi [2014] 146 ITD 152 (DEL) (ix) ITAT Indore Bench in the case of Shri TikamchandGarg and Others which also belong to Kalyan Group in ITA No. 1027 to 1033/Ind/2016 vide order dated 28.06.2017 (i) Decision of co-ordinate bench of Nagpur Tribunal in the case of Concrete Developers V/s ACIT reported in (2013) 34 taxmann.com 62 (Nagpur-Trib.) (ii) Decision of Honourable C…

Shri Mahesh Kumar Jain, Kishangarh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, we affirm the order of the ld CIT(A) in all these cases and all these cross appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

ITA 630/JPR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2017AY 2014-15
Section 271A

…h respect to section 271AAA would be equally applicable to the provisions of section 271AAB in which the penalty has been levied in the case of the assessee. Similar observations have been made by the Hon’ble Delhi ITAT in the matter of Neeraj Singal vs. ACIT 146 ITD 152 (Del) at para 11 when interpreting the provisions of section 271AAA while relying on the decisions rendered in context of explanation 5(2) of section 271(1)(c). Therefore, it is incorrect & unjustified to conclude that the decisions cited by Sh. Mahesh Kumar Jain and others vs. ACIT the assessee on section 271AAA are not applicable while dealing…

Sh. Rakesh Kumar Garg, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 673/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishirakesh Kumar Garg, Vs. Dcit, G-15, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle-12, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aadpg0991M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, CAFor Respondent: Sh. SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271A

…lopers Vs. ACIt 34 Taxmann.com 62 g. ACIT Vs. Nandini Realtors ITA No. 415/Nagpur/2015 h. Brij Bhusan Singhal Vs. ITO 5261/Del/2013 i. DCIT Vs. Sulachana Devi Agarwal 1052/Ahd/2012 j. ACIT Vs. Kanakiya Spaces Pvt. Ltd. 6763/Mum/2011 k. Neeraj Singhal Vs. ACIT 146 ITD 152. l. ACIT V Ajit singh 76 Taxmmann.com 212 (jp) Page 4 of 4 8. Coming to the decision cited by the ld Departmental Representative of Anand Sancheti Vs. DCIT ITA No. 305/Nagpur/2015, wherein it has been held that the decision of Gujarat and Allahabad High Court were not in reference penalty u/s 271AAA but u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We do not agree…

Shri Sunil Raisoni, Nagpur vs. D.C.I.T. Centralcircle 2(3), Nagpur

In the result, these appeal filed by the assessees stand allowed

ITA 593/NAG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271A

…aid taxes on it, then it is sufficient compliance not to levy penalty u/s 271AAA. Assessee need not explain the manner in which such income was earned. 32 CCH 260 DCIT v. Rajendra Prasad Dhoknla. (Ahd. Trib.) 77 DTR 244 Pramod Kumar Jain v. DCIT (Ctk. Trib.). 146 ITD 152 (Del.) Neerat Singh v/s ACIT. ITA No.3371/Del/2011 Smt. Raj Rani Gupta v. DCIT. (Del.ITAT) ITA No.5261/Del/2013 Brij Bhushan Singal v. Dept.of I.T.(Del.ITAT). ITA No.1052/Ahd/2012 DCIT v. Sulochanadevi Agrawal (Ahd. Trib.). ITA No.6763/Mum/2011 ACIT v. Kanakia Spaces Pvt.Ltd. (Mum. Trib.).” Learned counsel further placed reliance upon the decisio…

Shri Ravi Kataria, Ratlam vs. The DCIT Central Circle, Indore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand

ITA 898/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.898/Ind/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ravi Kataria Ratlam Pan – Acmpk 3917P` :: अपीलाथ" /Appellant Vs Dcit Central Circle Indore :: ""यथ" /Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.897/Ind/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Madanlal Kataria Ratlam Pan – Acfpk 5779D :: अपीलाथ" /Appellant Vs Dcit Central Circle Indore :: ""यथ" /Respondent Shri P.D. Nagar "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By Shri Mohd. Javed

Section 132(4)Section 271A

…d with the penalty. For this proposition, the learned counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions :- (i) CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah (2008) 299 ITR 305 (Guj) (ii) CIT v. Radha KishanGoel [2005] 278 ITR 454(All.) (iii) Neerat Singal vs. ACIT (2014) 146 ITD 152 (Del) (iv) Promad Kumar Jain vs. DCIT (2012) 77 DTR 244 (Cuttack) (v) Sita Ram Gupta vs. ACIT (2014) 151 ITD 449 (Del). 6. On the other hand, the DR relied upon the order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) with the submission that it is mandatory to specify the manner in earned. In the absence of such explanation regarding the manner in…

Shri Madanlal Kataria, Ratlam vs. The DCIT Central Circle, Indore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand

ITA 897/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.898/Ind/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ravi Kataria Ratlam Pan – Acmpk 3917P` :: अपीलाथ" /Appellant Vs Dcit Central Circle Indore :: ""यथ" /Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.897/Ind/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Madanlal Kataria Ratlam Pan – Acfpk 5779D :: अपीलाथ" /Appellant Vs Dcit Central Circle Indore :: ""यथ" /Respondent Shri P.D. Nagar "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By Shri Mohd. Javed

Section 132(4)Section 271A

…d with the penalty. For this proposition, the learned counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions :- (i) CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah (2008) 299 ITR 305 (Guj) (ii) CIT v. Radha KishanGoel [2005] 278 ITR 454(All.) (iii) Neerat Singal vs. ACIT (2014) 146 ITD 152 (Del) (iv) Promad Kumar Jain vs. DCIT (2012) 77 DTR 244 (Cuttack) (v) Sita Ram Gupta vs. ACIT (2014) 151 ITD 449 (Del). 6. On the other hand, the DR relied upon the order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) with the submission that it is mandatory to specify the manner in earned. In the absence of such explanation regarding the manner in…

M/S. Navdeep Jewellers Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Faridabad

ITA 1346/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Senior DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153Section 153(1)(b)Section 271Section 271ASection 274

…ed any query whatsoever to the assessee to substantiate the manner of earning of the undisclosed income. 14. Identical issued has been decided in favour of the assessee by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case cited as Neeraj Singhal vs. ACIT – (2014) 146 ITD 152 and Sunil Kumar Bansal vs. DCIT – (2015) 37 ITR 576. So, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that when the assessment in this case was completed u/s 153B(1)(b) of the Act at Rs.1,74,98,810/- (including surrendered amount of 9 ITA No.1346/Del./2014 Rs.1,70,43,170/-) and the assessee has paid tax due…

CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah (2008) 299 ITR 305 (Guj) (ii) CIT v. Radha KishanGoel (146 ITD 152) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax