CIT v. S.D.Chandru

266 ITR 175High Court2004#6940 most cited

What is CIT v. S.D.Chandru authority for?

Undisclosed income admitted and taxed based on a statement under section 132(4) after search, but not disclosed in returns, is immunized from penalty under section 271(1)(c).

16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. S.D.Chandru · Section 271(1)(c) · Section 132(4) · undisclosed income · penalty immunity · search assessment · admission of income

Sections most often in play

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 250Section 251Section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing CIT v. S.D.Chandru

Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 192/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 192/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2011-12 Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani P.No.2, Shiv Shankar Colony Janta Colony, Jaipur – 302 004 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward -6(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ANYPB 6571 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे/Assesseeby : Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru" V.C.) राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Sin

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru” V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…under section 271(1) Therefore, penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on the income shown in the return filed under section 153A CASES REFERRED TO CITv Chhabra Emporium [2003] 264 ITR 249/130 Tasman 818 (Delhi) (para 6.3), CIT v. SDV Chandr [2004] 266 ITR 175/136 Taxman 537 (Mad.) (para 6.3), GebilalKanhaialal (HUF) v. AM. CIT270 ITR 523/120051 143 Tasman 42 (Rai) 10 ITANO. 192/JPR/2025 SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI VS ITO, WARD 6(4), JAIPUR (para 6.3), Axsit. CIT. GehilalKanhaialal HUF 20121 348 ITR 561/210 Taxman 244/25 taxmann.com 214 (SC) (para 6.3), CIT v. Kanhaiyalal 2008] 299 ITR 19 (Raj.) (p…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Shri Kamal Sethia, Jaipur

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

ITA 1498/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Anil Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B. K. Gupta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES ’B’ JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 1498/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15 cuke Deputy Commissioner of Income Sh. Kamal Sethia Vs. tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur 801, Western Height, S-21, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFEPS7265Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 1499/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-1…

Taurus Transport, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 13(2), Mumbai

The Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4979/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271(1)(c)Section 51

…d to produce the necessary documents, to substantiate its claim, it may not be possible to furnish the same. The assessee to buy peace with the Department made a surrender and paid the taxes thereupon. In such a situation, the decision in CIT v. SDV Chandru 266 ITR 175 (Mad) wherein it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that where the assessee has not disclosed his income in the returns date of search and in the statement given u/s 132(4), the assessee admits the receipt of undisclosed income for those years and therefore pays taxes on the undisclosed income, such undisclosed income would be immunized from…

Taurus Transport, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 13(2), Mumbai

The Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4978/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271(1)(c)Section 51

…d to produce the necessary documents, to substantiate its claim, it may not be possible to furnish the same. The assessee to buy peace with the Department made a surrender and paid the taxes thereupon. In such a situation, the decision in CIT v. SDV Chandru 266 ITR 175 (Mad) wherein it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that where the assessee has not disclosed his income in the returns date of search and in the statement given u/s 132(4), the assessee admits the receipt of undisclosed income for those years and therefore pays taxes on the undisclosed income, such undisclosed income would be immunized from…

Dhanraj Mills P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD)-II Cen RG-7, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3830/MUM/2009[1987-88]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2017AY 1987-88

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 68

…Reliance Petro Product Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC) (Para-5). iii. Sheraton Appealers vs. ACIT 256 ITR 20 (Bom) (para-6) iv. CIT vs Kanhaiyalal Sarupaia 299 ITR 19 (Raj.)(Para-11) v. ACIT vs Kirit Dahyabhai Patel 121 ITD 159 (Ahd.)(para-12) vi. CIT vs S.D.V. Chandru 266 ITR 175 (mad.)(Para-12) vii. Ajit B. Zota vs ACIT 40 SOT543 (Mum)(para-12) viii. Mahendra Mittal vs. ACIT 132 ITD 80 (Mum) (para-12) ix. CIT vs Shri Sunil V.Sangoi (ITA Nos. 615 to 619/Mum/2010) (para-12) x. ACIT vs Rupesh Bhalidas Patel 309 ITR (AT) 217 (Ahd) (para- 14) xi. CIT vs Avinash Ch. Gupta 40 SOT 85 (Kol.) (Para-14) xii. DCIT vs Omkareshwar R.…

Sumer Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 844/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2016AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) applicable in the case wherein search initiated u/s. 132 before 01.06.2007. The appellant has relied on the following decisions:- (i) Gebilal Kanhaialal (HUF) v. ACIT..(2004) 270 ITR 523 (ii) CIT v. S. D.V. Chandru (2004) 266 ITR 175. (iii) CIT v. Kanhaivalal 299 ITR 19 (iv) CIT v. Chhabra Emporium 264 ITR 249 1.23 The Assessing Officer in his assessment order has admitted the fact that the appellant has filed its return of income in response to notice u/s. 153A showing income of Rs.67,04,500/- but he has imposed the penalty on the disclosed income also on the ground that thi…

DCIT 36, Mumbai vs. Sumer5 Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3608/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2016AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) applicable in the case wherein search initiated u/s. 132 before 01.06.2007. The appellant has relied on the following decisions:- (i) Gebilal Kanhaialal (HUF) v. ACIT..(2004) 270 ITR 523 (ii) CIT v. S. D.V. Chandru (2004) 266 ITR 175. (iii) CIT v. Kanhaivalal 299 ITR 19 (iv) CIT v. Chhabra Emporium 264 ITR 249 1.23 The Assessing Officer in his assessment order has admitted the fact that the appellant has filed its return of income in response to notice u/s. 153A showing income of Rs.67,04,500/- but he has imposed the penalty on the disclosed income also on the ground that thi…

DCIT, CC-Xvi, Kolkata vs. Shri Satyam Roy Chowdhury, Kolkata

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 639/KOL/2009[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…eted as “required to be furnished”. Only in that case the section will make a meaning otherwise the section does not make any meaning. We are supported in our view by the Judgement of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs S.D.Chandru reported in (2004) 266 ITR 175 (Mad)wherein a Division Bench opined that “The additional words which refer to the time specified in section 139(1) are only a I.T.A. No. 639, 640, 641, 642, 643 & 644/KOL./2009 Assessment years: 2000-2001 to 2005-2006 Page 10 of 14 reiteration of the legal requirement regarding the time within which returns should normally be filed.” In that…

DCIT, C.C.Xxvii, Kolkata vs. M/S. Pratap Properties Ltd., Kolkata

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1386/KOL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon. Sri Mahavir Singh & Hon. Sri M.Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Nongothung Jungio, JCIT, ld.Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri A.K Tibrewal, FCA, ld.AR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)

…eted as “required to be furnished”. Only in that case the section will make a meaning otherwise the section does not make any meaning. We are supported in our view by the Judgement of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs S.D.Chandru reported in (2004) 266 ITR 175 (Mad)wherein a Division Bench opined that “The additional words which refer to the time specified in section 139(1) are only a reiteration of the legal requirement regarding the time within which returns should normally be filed.” In that view of the matter, the question proposed by Revenue is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the ass…

ACIT Cen Cir 34, Mumbai vs. Jatin J.Shah, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2725/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Ms.Vasanti B. Patel, &For Respondent: Shri Shrikant Namdeo
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…he appellant has argued that all these three conditions has been fulfilled, therefore no penalty is leviable u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Reliance has been placed on the decision of CIT vs. Kanaiyalal (2008) 299 ITR 19 (Raj), CIT vs. C.'B.V. Chandru (2004) 266 ITR 175 (Madras) and CIT vs. Chhabra Emporium (2003) 264 1TR 249 (Delhi). The contention of the appellant is not acceptable as no search and' seizure operation was conducted in the premises of the appellant and statement was made u/s.131 during the course of survey u/s. 133A and not during search and seizure operation u/s.132( 4) of I. T. Act. Therefore,…

ACIT Cen Cir 34, Mumbai vs. Jay Fab, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2724/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Ms.Vasanti B. Patel, &For Respondent: Shri Shrikant Namdeo
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…he appellant has argued that all these three conditions has been fulfilled, therefore no penalty is leviable u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Reliance has been placed on the decision of CIT vs. Kanaiyalal (2008) 299 ITR 19 (Raj), CIT vs. C.'B.V. Chandru (2004) 266 ITR 175 (Madras) and CIT vs. Chhabra Emporium (2003) 264 1TR 249 (Delhi). The contention of the appellant is not acceptable as no search and' seizure operation was conducted in the premises of the appellant and statement was made u/s.131 during the course of survey u/s. 133A and not during search and seizure operation u/s.132( 4) of I. T. Act. Therefore,…

ACIT CC 34, Mumbai vs. Jay Fab, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3104/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Ms.Vasanti B. Patel, &For Respondent: Shri Shrikant Namdeo
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…he appellant has argued that all these three conditions has been fulfilled, therefore no penalty is leviable u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Reliance has been placed on the decision of CIT vs. Kanaiyalal (2008) 299 ITR 19 (Raj), CIT vs. C.'B.V. Chandru (2004) 266 ITR 175 (Madras) and CIT vs. Chhabra Emporium (2003) 264 1TR 249 (Delhi). The contention of the appellant is not acceptable as no search and' seizure operation was conducted in the premises of the appellant and statement was made u/s.131 during the course of survey u/s. 133A and not during search and seizure operation u/s.132( 4) of I. T. Act. Therefore,…

DCIT, CC-I, Kolkata vs. Sheo Kumar Kajaria, Kolkata

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1425/KOL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: S/Shri A.K TibrewalFor Respondent: Shri S.Dutta, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)

…ated 11.5.2009 g) Decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Ramesh Chand Goyal in G.A. No. 2347 of 2010 in ITAT No. 181 of 2010 dated 11.8.2010 h) Decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs S.D.V.Chandru reported in (2004) 266 ITR 175 (Mad) i) Decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Shri Samit Roy in ITA No. 354 of 2009 dated 3.9.2015. j) Decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Tapan Kumar Ghosh in ITA No. 6 of 2010 dated 3.9.2015. ITA Nos.1425 & 1426/K/10- Department Vs. Sh. Sheo Kr. Kajjaria ITA Nos. 1172 to 1174/K/11-Sh. Sajjan K…

Sri Narendra N. Thacker, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C.Xxiv, Kolkata

ITA Nos.1786-

ITA 1786/KOL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)

…eted as “required to be furnished”. Only in that case the section will make a meaning otherwise the section does not make any meaning. We are supported in our view by the Judgement of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs S.D.Chandru reported in (2004) 266 ITR 175 (Mad)wherein a Division Bench opined that “The additional words which refer to the time specified in section 139(1) are only a reiteration of the legal requirement regarding the time within which returns should normally be filed.” In that view of the matter, the question proposed by Revenue is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the ass…

DCIT, Cent Cir-I, Kol, Kolkata vs. Deepak Choudhury, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1875/KOL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Balaganesh & Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)

…eted as “required to be furnished”. Only in that case the section will make a meaning otherwise the section does not make any meaning. We are supported in our view by the Judgement of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs S.D.Chandru reported in (2004) 266 ITR 175 (Mad)wherein a Division Bench opined that “The additional words which refer to the time specified in section 139(1) are only a reiteration of the legal requirement regarding the time within which returns should normally be filed.” In that view of the matter, the question proposed by Revenue is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the ass…

Shourya Towers Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT

ITA/170/2012HC Delhi12 Dec 2012
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…s 153A. Thus, it is not incorrect on the part of the Revenue to levy penalty on the assessee. It was also contended that immunity under Explanation 5 of Section 271(1) (c) cannot be availed by the assessee. Relying on the decision of CIT vs. S.D.V. Chandru 266 ITR 175 (Mad.), the Respondent argues that it is necessary for the assessee to declare the mode in which the income was acquired. In the instant case, leaving aside the mode of acquisition of income, even the return was not filed of the entire income before the search was made. Thus, immunity under this explanation cannot be granted to the assessee.…

CIT v. S.D.Chandru (266 ITR 175) — Cited in 16 Judgments | BharatTax