CIT v. Suresh Chand Mittal

170 CTR 182Supreme Court of India2001#13577 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also reported as

281 ITR 9

Sections most often in play

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 133(a)section 115jcdeletion of penaltytax collected at sourcesurrender of incomesection 260afurnishing inaccurate particulars of incomepenalty under section 271(1)(c)penalty u/s 271(1)(c)section 153a(1)furnishing inaccurate particularsconcealment of income

Judgments citing CIT v. Suresh Chand Mittal

Assistant Commissioner of Income Ta, Jaipur vs. Shri Nath Corporation, Jaipur

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

ITA 267/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

…t has been made ? – Held Yes Further held that assessment in this case has been completed on the basis of revised return filed, there was no concealment and hence penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment cannot be imposed” 9.3In CIT vs Suresh Chand Mittal (2001) 170 CTR 182, 281 ITR 0009 (SC) 9.4 All the cases cited in the decision compilation. Hence, the ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the impugned penalty and appeal of the department deserves to be dismissed. ITA No. 267, 196 & 197/JPR/2024 23 Shri Nath Corporation & Ors., Jaipur. 9. The ld. AR of the assessee has relied upon the following evidence to support the conte…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur

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

ITA 197/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (through V.C.) a
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

…has been made ? – Held Yes Further held that assessment in this case has been completed on the basis of revised return filed, there was no concealment and hence penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment cannot be imposed” 9.3In CIT vs Suresh Chand Mittal (2001) 170 CTR 182, 281 ITR 0009 (SC) 9.4 All the cases cited in the decision compilation. Hence, the ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the impugned penalty and appeal of the department deserves to be dismissed.” ITA No. 267, 196 & 197/JPR/2024 23 Shri Nath Corporation & Ors., Jaipur. 9. The ld. AR of the assessee has relied upon the following evidence to support the…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jaipur vs. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur

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

ITA 196/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

…t has been made ? – Held Yes Further held that assessment in this case has been completed on the basis of revised return filed, there was no concealment and hence penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment cannot be imposed” 9.3In CIT vs Suresh Chand Mittal (2001) 170 CTR 182, 281 ITR 0009 (SC) 9.4 All the cases cited in the decision compilation. Hence, the ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the impugned penalty and appeal of the department deserves to be dismissed. 9. The ld. AR of the assessee has relied upon the following evidence to support the contentions raised in the written submission:- S. No. Particulars Page Nos. 1.…

Pooja Upadhyay, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Devang Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…as been made ? – Held Yes Further held that assessment in this case has been completed on the basis of revised return filed, there was no concealment and hence penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment cannot be imposed” 4.3 In CIT vs Suresh Chand Mittal (2001) 170 CTR 182, 281 ITR 0009 (SC) 10 Pooja Upadhyay vs. ITO, Ward 5(1), Jaipur 5. Supporting case laws u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 153A: 5.1 In Pr. CIT vs. Neeraj Jindal 2017) 393 ITR 0001 (Delhi), it was held that: “Thus, it is clear that when the A.O. has accepted the revised return filed by the assessee under Section 153A, no occasion arises to refer to the pre…

Shri Krishna Jewels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 6758/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: FixedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year : 2013-14

Section 271(1)(c)

…of the penalty proceedings then the impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer is not valid and liable to be quashed. He has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 4 | P a g e CIT vs Suresh Chandra Mittal, reported in 170 CTR 182. Thus, the Ld. AR has submitted that the Assessing Officer has not given a conclusive finding on the point of default for which the penalty was levied then the initiation of penalty as well as the penalty order is not valid and liable to be quashed. He has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Manjuna…

Shri Dilip Oommen, Surat vs. The ACIT, Circle-7, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 530/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jan 2019AY 2010-11
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…Page 1 of 3 Dilip Oomen Vs. ACIT, Circle-7, Surat /ITA No.530/Ahd/2015/A.Y.2010-11 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT "ीमती िदवा िसंह, "ाियक सद" तथा "ी ओ.पी.मीना, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.530/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Dilip Oomen, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner D-3/4, Nand Niketan, Essar of Income Tax, Township, Hazira, Surat – 394 270. Circle-7, Surat. [PAN: AAHPP 0679 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri P.M.Jagasheth – CA िनधा"रती क" ओ…

M/S. Dhansar Engineering (P) Ltd., Dhanbad vs. ACIT, C.C. - VII, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 921/KOL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar, ACA, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Bhattacharya, JCIT, Ld.DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 274

…riting of DDIT (Inv) in respect of such assurance that penalty shall not be levied. The assessee has also relied upon the judgements of the following cases:- 1. Illumination India –Vs- Asst.CIT(2006) 100 TTJ 426(Pune) 2. CIT –Vs- Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 170 CTR 182(SC) 3. Lotus learning (P) Ltd –Vs- DCIT (2006) 7 SOT 540(Mum) 4. CIT –Vs- Punjab Tyre 162 ITR 571 5. CIT –Vs- Shiv Oil and Dal Mill (2006) 281 ITR 221(All) 6. Navbharat Enterprises (P) Ltd –Vs- Asstt.CIT (2009) 118 ITD 8(Hyd) 7. CIT –Vs- Santosh Financier (2001) 247 ITR 742 (Kar) 8. Addl.CIT –Vs- Jeevan Lal Sah (1994) 205 ITR 244(SC) 9. CIT –Vs-…

CIT v. Suresh Chand Mittal (170 CTR 182) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax