What is CIT v. Suraj Bhan authority for?

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income is not automatically imposed merely because an assessee files a revised return showing higher income, particularly after a survey, if the income is offered to buy peace or avoid litigation. There is no deeming fiction for higher income declared during a survey akin to Explanation 5 or 5A for search cases.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Suraj Bhan?

57 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Suraj Bhan (294 ITR 481), spanning 2012 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Suraj Bhan come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 132, Section 153A, Section 143(3), Section 274, Section 142(1).

CIT v. Suraj Bhan (294 ITR 481)

Suresh Productions, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 641/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 641/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Suresh Productions, Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Vs. [Pan No. Aajfs7306J] Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/02/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 29/02/2024 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, (“Learned Cit(A)”), In The Case Of Suresh Productions (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Assessee Preferred This Appeal With A Delay Of One Day. Learned Ar Explained That The Delay Is Due To Calculation Error. Heard Learned Dr. Delay Is Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Waseem UR Rehman, DR

Section 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 641/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Suresh Productions, Dy. Commissioner of Hyderabad Income Tax, Vs. [PAN No. AAJFS7306J] Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri A. Srinivas, AR रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Shri Waseem UR Rehman, DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 29/02/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 2…

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 756/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM deys’k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 755 & 756/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2016-17 cuke Prem Prakash Agarwal DCIT, Vs. 429/7, Naya Bazar, Ajmer Central Circle, Ajmer, Jaipur Road, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACGPA 2972 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA) jktLo…

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 755/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM deys’k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 755 & 756/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2016-17 cuke Prem Prakash Agarwal DCIT, Vs. 429/7, Naya Bazar, Ajmer Central Circle, Ajmer, Jaipur Road, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACGPA 2972 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA) jktLo…

Kishan Kumar Agarwal, Secunderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 573/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.573/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Kishan Kumar Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Agarwal Central Circle 2(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Ablpa3923C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/01/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2.12.2022 Of The Learned Cit(A)-12, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.17,05,680/- Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…eturn after the search has been conducted and such return has been accepted by the Assessing Officer, then merely by virtue of the Act that such return showed a higher income, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot automatically be imposed: i) CIT v. Suraj Bhan (2007) 294 ITR 481 ii) Bhadra Advancing (P) Ltd v. ACIT (2008) 175 Taxmann 551 iii) CIT vs. Suresh Chand Bansal (2010) 329 ITR 330 iv) S.M.J Housing vs. CIT (2013) 357 ITR 698/38 Taxmann.com 203 8.1 He accordingly submitted that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act is leviable. Page 6 of 14 ITA 573 of 2023 Kishan Kumar Agarwal 9. The learned Counsel for the…

Income-Tax Officer, Ward 6(3), Pune vs. M/S Raviraj Ventures, Pune

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 667/PUN/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteincome Tax Officer, Vs M/S.Raviraj Ventures, Ward-6(3), Pune. 1 To 5, Millenium Star, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aagfr 3176 G Appellant/Revenue Respondent/Assessee Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.G.Jasnani, Jt.Cit Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement. : 15/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Pune-11, Dated 30.06.2022 Emanating From The Order Of The Acit, Dated 30.11.2018 Under Section 271(1)(C)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Cit(A) Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Passing The Order. 2. The Cit (A) Erred In Law As Well As On Facts By Deleting The Penalty U/S 271(L)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Of Rs.1,59,55,025/- Levied By The Ao Towards Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income For Not Following Recognization Of Revenue As Per As-9, As Raviraj Ventures [R]

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.G.Jasnani, Jt.CIT

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCHES :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Income Tax Officer, Vs M/s.Raviraj Ventures, Ward-6(3), Pune. 1 to 5, Millenium Star, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. PAN: AAGFR 3176 G Appellant/Revenue Respondent/Assessee Assessee by : Shri Rajiv Thakkar, AR Revenue by : Shri M.G.Jasnani, Jt.CIT Date of hearing : 16/02/2023 Date of pronouncement. : 15/05/2023 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Pun…

Smt. Urvashi Sanjaykumar Gupta, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(4), Surat

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 346/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Surat06 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainismt. Urvashi Sanjaykumar Gupta, I.T.O., Ratna Vihar Apartment, New City Ward-2(3)(4), Vs. Light, Surat-395007. Surat. Pan No. Aanpg 4855 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…isions: (i) CIT Vs Suresh Chandra Mittal 251 ITR 009(SC) (ii) CIT Vs Bhavinkumar M Dagli 377 ITR 389 (Guj HC) (iii) CIT Vs Shankerlal Nebhumal Uttamchandani 311 ITR 327 (Guj) (iv) Pr.CIT Vs Smt. Prabhjot Kaur Chhabra 419 ITR 094 (MP HC) (v) CIT Vs Suraj Bhan 294 ITR 481 (P&H HC) (vi) PCIT & Ors. Vs Krishna Devi & Ors. 431 ITR 361 (Del HC) 5 Smt. Urvashi Sanjaykumar Gupta Vs ITO (vii) Lalubhai P Bathani Vs DCIT 242/Srt/2017 (Surat Trib) (viii) Smt. Pushpaben P Sonarupawala V ACIT 17 CCH 023 (Ahd. Trib) (ix) Neelu Garg Vs ITO 55 CCH 0459 (Chad Trib). 6. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue supported…

Krishan Lal Madhok, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6422/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2007-08]

For Appellant: Shri Priyanshu Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rocktim Saikia, Sr. DR

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

…his point, several High Courts have also opined that the mere increase in the amount of income shown in the revised return is not sufficient to justify a levy of penalty. 18. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suraj Bhan, (2007) 294 ITR 481 (P & H), held that when an assessee files a revised return showing higher income, penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of such higher income filed in the revised return. Similarly, the Karnataka High Court in the case of Bhadra Advancing Pvt Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2008) 219 CTR 447, held that merely because the a…

Sai Samarth Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 1, Thane

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 3718/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3718/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3720/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3721/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ M/S. Sai Samarth Enterprises Dcit-Central Circle-1, 107, Patel Building, Parel, Thane. Vs. Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abufs9008B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Suchek Anchaliya Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/03/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, (Jm): The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 29.03.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. AR)

Section 132Section 132oSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3718/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3720/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3721/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ M/s. Sai Samarth Enterprises DCIT-Central Circle-1, 107, Patel Building, Parel, Thane. Vs. Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ABUFS9008B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Suchek Anchaliya Revenue by: Shri T…

ITO, Sard- 1 (2) Thane, Thane vs. Mak Rubber Products, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 5416/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5416/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito Ward-1(2) Thane बिधम/ Mak Rubber Products Room No.24, B-Wing, 6Th 301/306, B-Wing, Giriya Co. Vs. Floor, Ashar It Park, Road Op. Hsg. Society, Mahatma No. 16Z, Wagle Ind. Estate, Phule Road, Naupada, Thane (W)-400604. Thane-400601. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabfm8605N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Jothilakshmi Nayak (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Bhadresh K. Doshi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 05.07.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -03, Nasik [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009-10 In Which The Penalty Levied By Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh K. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Jothilakshmi Nayak (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271

…e transaction with 6 A.Y.2009-10 supporting documents. But does not mean that there is concealment of income. 3.5. I further reply on following decisions for my view that penalty cannot be levied on addition made on agreed basis. a) CIT V/s Suaraj Bhan (2007) 294 ITR 481 (P&H HC) b) CIT V/s Suresh Chandra Mittals (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC) c) CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (Ker HC) d) Sir Shadi Lal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. V/s CIT (1987) 168 ITR 705 (SC) 3.6. In view of the above discussion, In my opinion penalty cannot be levied in present case. Thereby, the assessing officer is directed to delete th…

DCIT Circle-3, Thane vs. Smt. Smita Vilas Shimpi, Thane

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1266/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit Circle – 3 V. Smt Smita Vilas Simpi Room No. 02, B-Wing, 6Th Floor Gr/1St Floor, Moreshwar Kamal Bldg. Ashar I.T Park, 6Th Floor Dr. Ramesh Pradhan Marg Road No. 16Z Talaopali, Thane (W) Wagle Industrial Estate Mumbai – 400 602 Thane – 400 604 Pan:Aqsps4519A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Bheraram

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bheraram

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…Brothers (1987) 59 CTR (Kerala HC) 298:- Where the assessee for one reason or other agrees or surrenders certain amounts for assessment, the imposition of penalty solely on the basis of assessee's surrender will not be well founded. • Cit V/S Surajbhan (2007) 294 ITR 481 (P&H HC):- Penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of higher income having been subsequently declared. 7. The Supreme Court has recently reiterated the law in case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 by holding in para 62 that finding in assessment proceedings cannot automatically adopted in penalty proceedings and the authoritie…

ITO, Ward-2(1), Thane vs. Bhavna Harish Hadvani, Bhayandar(W)

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 379/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharmai.T.O. Vs. Bhavna Harish Hadvani, Ward 2(1), Thane, Prop. Of M/S J.B. Patel R.No. 25, B-Wing, 6Th Surgical, At 502, Sadma Floor, Ashar It Park, Tower Prakash Market Wagle Industrial Estate, Road, Bhayander (W)- Road No. 16Z, Thane- 401101 400604. Pan/Gir No. Ajtpp 1509 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Akhtar H Ansari (Dr) Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 23/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2020

Section 271(1)(c)

…rothers (1987) 59 CTR (Kerala HC) 298:- Where the assessee for one reason or other agrees or surrenders certain amounts for assessment, the imposition of penalty solely on the basis of assessee's surrender will not be well founded. * CIT V/S Surajbhan (2007) 294 ITR 481 (P&H HC):- Penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of higher income having been subsequently declared. 3 ITO Vs Bhavna Harish Hadvani 7. The Supreme Court has recently reiterated the law in case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 by holding in para 62 that finding in assessment proceedings cannot automatically adopted in penalt…

ITO Ward-2(4), Thane vs. Yogesh A. Doshi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 377/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharmai.T.O. Vs. Yogesh A. Doshi, Ward 2(4), Thane, 204, A/43, Sector No. 3, R.No. 12, B-Wing, 6Th Shanti Nagar, Mira Road Floor, Ashar It Park, (E), Thane-401104. Wagle Industrial Estate, Road No. 16Z, Thane- 400604. Pan/Gir No. Agspd 2681 C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Akhtar H Ansari (Dr) Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 23/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2020

Section 271(1)(c)

…rothers (1987) 59 CTR (Kerala HC) 298:- Where the assessee for one reason or other agrees or surrenders certain amounts for assessment, the imposition of penalty solely on the basis of assessee's surrender will not be well founded. * CIT V/S Surajbhan (2007) 294 ITR 481 (P&H HC):- Penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of higher income having been subsequently declared. 3 ITO Vs Yogesh A Doshi 7. The Supreme Court has recently reiterated the law in case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 by holding in para 62 that finding in assessment proceedings cannot automatically adopted in penalty proce…

ITO, W-3(2), Thane vs. Prayosha Buildmat Pvt Ltd, Thane

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 345/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharmai.T.O., Vs. M/S Prayosha Buildmat Pvt. Ltd., Ward 3(2), Thane, 8, Vivek Co-Operative Housing 6Th Room No. 14, Society, Ravi Compound, Madan Floor, B-Wing, Wagle Lal Dhingra Road, Mr. Talwalkar Industrial Estate, Gym Panchpakadi, Thane (W)- Thane (W), 400604. 400602. Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 0114 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 271(1)(c)

…Where the assessee for one reason or other agrees or surrenders certain amounts for assessment, 3 ITO Vs M/s Prayosha Buildmat P Ltd. the imposition of penalty solely on the basis of assessee's surrender will not be well founded. * CIT V/S Surajbhan (2007) 294 ITR 481 (P&H HC):- Penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of higher income having been subsequently declared. 7. The Supreme Court has recently reiterated the law in case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 by holding in para 62 that finding in assessment proceedings cannot automatically adopted in penalty proceedings and the authoriti…

Deepak Jatia, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 940/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 940 To 943/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2013-14) बिधम/ Deepak Jatia Dcit-Central Circle-1(1) Room No.903, 9Th Floor, Old Marathon Innova, „A‟ Wing, Vs. 7Th Floor, Off. G. K. Marg, Cgo Bldg, Annexure, M.K. Lower Parel, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adxpj8701D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Narendra Singh Jang Pangi (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, (Jm): The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 47, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (AR)For Respondent: Shri Narendra Singh Jang Pangi

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 27Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…this point, several High Courts have also opined that the mere increase in the amount of income shown in the revised return is not sufficient to justify a levy of penalty. 13. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suraj Bhan, (2007) 294 ITR 481 (P & H), held that when an assessee files a revised return showing higher income, penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of such higher income filed in the revised return. Similarly, the Karnataka High Court in the case of Bhadra Advancing Pvt. Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2008) 219 CTR 447, held that merely because the…

ITO 21 (2)(3), Mumbai vs. Mohd.Kaleem Majeed Khan, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6355/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm I.T.O.-21(2)(3) Vs. Shri Mohd. Kaleem Majeed Khan, Mumbai. Room No. 3, Chawl No. 3, Muncipal Chawl, Umar Rajjab Road, Opp. Rehman Masjid, Morland Road, Mumbai-400011. Pan/Gir No. Aacpk 4225 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…porting documents but does not automatically mean that there is concealment of income. I further rely on following decisions for my view that penalty cannot be levied on addition on agreed basis. 4 ITO Vs Mohd. Kaleem Majeed Khan * CIT Vs Suraraj Bhan (2007) 294 ITR 481 (P&H HC) * CIT Vs Suresh Chandra Mittals (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC) * CIT Vs Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (Key HC) * Sir Shadi Lal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. Vs CIT (1987) 168 ITR 705 (SC) 9.5 On careful perusal of the penalty order, the written submission of the appellant and relied on various case laws, it is found that even the addition was…