CIT v. Suraj Bhan

294 ITR 481High Court2007#2018 most cited

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.

57

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Suraj Bhan · Suraj Bhan · 294 ITR 481 · Section 271(1)(c) penalty · revised return higher income · no automatic penalty · income declared after survey · buy peace of mind · explanation 5A inapplicable · concealment of income

Also reported as

159 Taxmann 26

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 132Section 153ASection 143(3)Section 274Section 142(1)Section 234BSection 69

Issues it is cited on

section 90(3)section 65(b)section 276section 65b(4)section 163section 153b(1)azadi bachao andolanhouse property incomesection 271(c)section 65bsection 90(2)section 276c

Judgments citing CIT v. Suraj Bhan

Rishabh Buildwell P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6881/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

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

…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…

Rishabh Buildwell P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6880/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

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

…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…

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)

…[2007] 161 Taxmann 218 (SC), Sudarshan Silk & Sarees vs. CIT (2008) 300 ITR 205 (SC), CIT vs. S.D.V. Chandru [2004] 266 ITR 175/136 Taxman 537 (Mad.), CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2000] 241 ITR 124/[2002] 123 Taxman 1052 (MP), and CIT vs. Suraj Bhan [2007] 294 ITR 481/159 Taxman 26 (Punj. & Har.) 24. It was further submitted that the order passed u/s 143(3) r/w section 153A does not specify under which limb the penalty is initiated. Nor does notice u/s 274 do so. It was submitted that for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c), ld. AO has to apply his mind and come to a conclusion that whether the penalty is being lev…

Sh. Satpal Gosain, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 132/CHANDI/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Nov 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Kehlon, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’, CHANDIGARH "ी संजय गग", "याय"क सद"य एवं "ीमती अ"नपणा" ग"ता , लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JM & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.132/Chd/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Sh.Satpal Gosain The A.C.I.T., बनाम C/o G.B. Auto Circlel-1, Industries (Regd.), Ludhiana. C-84, Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABDPG9952H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri J.S. Kehlon, Sr.DR सनवाई…

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘ ई’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member ITA NOs.4978 & 4979/Mum/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s Taurus Transport, ACIT, 32/33, Easter Chambers, Circle-13(2), बनाम/ 128/A, Nandlal Jain Marg, 02nd Floor, Vs. Poona Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400009 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN No.:-AAEFM0956B "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Prakash G. Jhunjhunwa…

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘ ई’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member ITA NOs.4978 & 4979/Mum/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s Taurus Transport, ACIT, 32/33, Easter Chambers, Circle-13(2), बनाम/ 128/A, Nandlal Jain Marg, 02nd Floor, Vs. Poona Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400009 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN No.:-AAEFM0956B "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Prakash G. Jhunjhunwa…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-19 vs. Shri Neeraj Jindal

ITA/464/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…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 becaus…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-19 vs. Shri Ankur Aggarwal

ITA/465/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…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 becaus…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-19 vs. Shri Ankur Aggarwal

ITA/466/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…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 becaus…

Shri Cdr, Udai Singh, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 3(1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 791/IND/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.791/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Cdr Udaisingh Bhopal Pan – Aglps – 7299C :: अपीलाथ" /Appellant Vs Acit 3(1) :: ""यथ" /Respondent Bhopal Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah Shri K.G. Goyal राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By 12.1.2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख Date Of Hearing 19.1.2017 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख Date Of Pronouncement

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

…CDR Udai Singh आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE "ी डी.ट".गरा"सया, "या"यक सद"य तथा "ी ओ.पी.मीना, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.791/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 CDR Udaisingh Bhopal PAN – AGLPS – 7299C :: अपीलाथ" /Appellant Vs ACIT 3(1) :: ""यथ" /Respondent Bhopal Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by Shri Pankaj Shah Shri K.G. Goyal राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue by 12.1.2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख Date of hearing 19.1.2017 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख Date…

DCIT 24(2), Mumbai vs. Unisynth Chemicals, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is dismissed

ITA 5967/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain D C I T – 24(2) M/S. Unisynth Chemicals 6Th Floor, Pratyaksha Kar 106-107, Advent Atria Vs. Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E) Chincholi Bunder Road Mumbai 400051 Malad (W), Mumbai 400064 Pan – Aaafu1724D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh K. ArvindFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Punmiya
Section 1Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…bility to prove transaction with 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…

Golani Brothers, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 4596/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavedia
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…or the (Ker HC) 298 other agrees or surrenders certain amounts for assessment, the imposition of penalty (A.Y.2007-2008 to 2011-12) M/s. Golani Brothers,Mumbai solely on the basis of assessee’s surrender will not be well founded. 3 CIT v/s. SuarajBhan (2007) 294 ITR 481 Penalty cannot be imposed merely on (P&H HC) account of higher income having been subsequently declared. CIT v/s. Suresh Chandra Mittals (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC) 4 CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Sec. 271(1)( c) penalty not leviable where Factory (Ker HC) assessee agree to additions to buy peace. 24. Since, in the instant case the assessee has…

Golani Brothers, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 4595/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavedia
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…or the (Ker HC) 298 other agrees or surrenders certain amounts for assessment, the imposition of penalty (A.Y.2007-2008 to 2011-12) M/s. Golani Brothers,Mumbai solely on the basis of assessee’s surrender will not be well founded. 3 CIT v/s. SuarajBhan (2007) 294 ITR 481 Penalty cannot be imposed merely on (P&H HC) account of higher income having been subsequently declared. CIT v/s. Suresh Chandra Mittals (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC) 4 CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Sec. 271(1)( c) penalty not leviable where Factory (Ker HC) assessee agree to additions to buy peace. 24. Since, in the instant case the assessee has…

Golani Brothers, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 4594/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavedia
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…or the (Ker HC) 298 other agrees or surrenders certain amounts for assessment, the imposition of penalty (A.Y.2007-2008 to 2011-12) M/s. Golani Brothers,Mumbai solely on the basis of assessee’s surrender will not be well founded. 3 CIT v/s. SuarajBhan (2007) 294 ITR 481 Penalty cannot be imposed merely on (P&H HC) account of higher income having been subsequently declared. CIT v/s. Suresh Chandra Mittals (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC) 4 CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Sec. 271(1)( c) penalty not leviable where Factory (Ker HC) assessee agree to additions to buy peace. 24. Since, in the instant case the assessee has…

Golani Brothers, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 4593/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavedia
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…or the (Ker HC) 298 other agrees or surrenders certain amounts for assessment, the imposition of penalty (A.Y.2007-2008 to 2011-12) M/s. Golani Brothers,Mumbai solely on the basis of assessee’s surrender will not be well founded. 3 CIT v/s. SuarajBhan (2007) 294 ITR 481 Penalty cannot be imposed merely on (P&H HC) account of higher income having been subsequently declared. CIT v/s. Suresh Chandra Mittals (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC) 4 CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Sec. 271(1)( c) penalty not leviable where Factory (Ker HC) assessee agree to additions to buy peace. 24. Since, in the instant case the assessee has…

Karamjit Singh Dhanjal, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Smt. Diva Singh & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. V.R. Sachdev, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT/DR
Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE : SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.290/Del./2014 Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Karamjit Singh Dhanjal, vs. J.C.I.T., Circle 26(1), C-5, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN: ADUPD 0996K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. V.R. Sachdev, C.A. Respondent by : Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT/DR Date of hearing : 26.07.2016 Date of pronouncement : 19.08.2016 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-XVIII, New Delhi dated 13.11.2013 for the…

The Commissioner of Income Tax Gulbarga vs. M/S Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/2564/2005HC Karnataka13 Dec 2012

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

Section 260Section 260A

…Merely because addition has been accepted and taxes paid along with interest should mitigate the attitude of the Assessing Officer in not levying penalty rather than levy of penalty. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of SURAJ BHAN reported in 294 ITR 481, has held that when an assessee files revised return showing higher income penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of the higher income. There is no deeming fiction for survey similar to explanation 5 or 5A which are in respect of search action only. There is no deeming fiction for higher income declared during survey and the assess…