What is CIT v. Rakesh Suri authority for?

A surrender of additional income is not voluntary if it is made after a search has revealed the income and the assessee is required to furnish details. The decision in CIT v. Rakesh Suri is distinguishable if it pertains to additions not pursuant to a search.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Rakesh Suri?

18 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Rakesh Suri (331 ITR 458), spanning 2011 to 2023.

CIT v. Rakesh Suri (331 ITR 458)

DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Ajmer vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 210/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 210/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer cuke Vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma F-108, Industrial Area, Makhupura Parbatpura, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ASWPS 3791 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. No. 04/JP/2023 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 210/JP/2023) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 Yashwant Kumar Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. James Kurian (CIT) &

Section 139(1)Section 271ASection 274

…alty the ld. AO stated that had search not been conducted additional income would not have been detected and thus he holds that the declaration of the additional income was not voluntary. The ld. AO relying on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Rakesh Suri 331 ITR 458 hold a view that the surrender is not voluntary. We have seen the facts of the case relied upon by the ld. AO in his order for Mr. Rakesh Suri. In that case return of income for the relevant assessment year, the assessee had disclosed long-term capital gain on sale of shares of company 'N'. During assessment proceedings, the assessee was 13 I…

DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Ajmer vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma, Ajmer

In the result, both the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 209/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. James Kurian (CIT) &

Section 132(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Thus, the finding that the revised return could not be treated as voluntarily has no leg to stand considering the specific explanation provided in the Act. The other decision as relied upon by the AO in his penalty order in the case of CIT Vs. Rakesh Suri 331 ITR 458 is not related to the addition pursuant to search. Thus, the decision relied upon by the ld. AR and DR are different on its facts and are clearly distinguishable with the facts of this case and the same are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. While rendering the decision in this case the ld. CIT(A) has considered all the aspects o…

DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Ajmer vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma, Ajmer

In the result, both the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 208/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. James Kurian (CIT) &

Section 132(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Thus, the finding that the revised return could not be treated as voluntarily has no leg to stand considering the specific explanation provided in the Act. The other decision as relied upon by the AO in his penalty order in the case of CIT Vs. Rakesh Suri 331 ITR 458 is not related to the addition pursuant to search. Thus, the decision relied upon by the ld. AR and DR are different on its facts and are clearly distinguishable with the facts of this case and the same are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. While rendering the decision in this case the ld. CIT(A) has considered all the aspects o…

Vinod Ratan Patil, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 3, Kalyan

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4246/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 68

…in Section 276 of the Act. In this regard, I would like to place reliance on the decisions delivered by the courts, in following cases: i) Ravi & Co Vs ACIT, 271 ITR 286 (Mad) ii) Bhairavlal Verma Vs Union of India, 230 ITR 855 (All) iii) CIT Vs Rakesh Suri, 331 ITR 458 (All) 6.4 In the case of In Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008-TIOL- 192-SC-CX-LB), the Supreme Court examined Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and other provisions for imposition of penalty in different statutory enactments. It was held that penalty in such cases imposed for tax delinquency is a civil obligation, remedial and coe…

Gaurishankar Chaudhary, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 6112/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Harmesh Lal

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…ITA Nos. 6110 to 6113/Mum/2019 1 Gaurishankar Chaudhary Vs. ACIT, CC-4(4) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.6110 to 6113/Mum/2019 (A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2014-15) Gaurishankar Chaudhary Vs. ACIT, CC-4(4) Flat No. 103 & 104, Sea 1922, 19th Floor, Air Shell Apartment, Opp. India Building, Nana Nani Park, Seven Nariman Point, Bungalows, Andheri West Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 061 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: ACXPC8039Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Harmesh Lal Date…

Gaurishankar Chaudhary, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 6110/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Harmesh Lal

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…ITA Nos. 6110 to 6113/Mum/2019 1 Gaurishankar Chaudhary Vs. ACIT, CC-4(4) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.6110 to 6113/Mum/2019 (A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2014-15) Gaurishankar Chaudhary Vs. ACIT, CC-4(4) Flat No. 103 & 104, Sea 1922, 19th Floor, Air Shell Apartment, Opp. India Building, Nana Nani Park, Seven Nariman Point, Bungalows, Andheri West Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 061 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: ACXPC8039Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Harmesh Lal Date…

Satish Saraf, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner Central Circle-4(3), Central Range-4, Mumbai

ITA 6567/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)

…gard to the undisclosed income, the disclosure made by the assessee cannot be considered to be voluntary. Further, in the cases of P.C. Joseph & 12 I.T.A. No. 6567, 6605 & 6568/Mum/2017 Satish Saraf Bros. Vs. CIT (Ker) 240 ITR 818, CIT vs, Rakesh Suri (All) 331 ITR 458 and CIT vs. Sushma Devi Agarwal (ITAT, Kol-TM) 67 DTR 430, it has been held that simply because the assessee agreed for addition of undisclosed income subsequent to detection thereof and filed return in response to notice u/s. 148 offering the said amount as additional income, the assessee cannot escape levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). In the said…

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)

…thereof and filed return in response to notice u/s. 148 of IT Act, 1961 offering additional income, assessee cannot escape penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant case laws are as following: > PC Joseph & Bros (Kerala) 240 ITR 818 > Rakesh Suri (All) 331 ITR 458 > Sushma Devi Agarwal (ITAT-Kol-TM) 67 DTR 430 5.2 Also Where the omission is deliberate, he cannot get rid of merely by filing a revised return. The revised return being filed only after the Department got information which was confronted to the assessee, penalty is attracted. Similar view has been upheld by several courts in the following judg…