CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal

251 ITR 9Supreme Court of India2001#537 most cited

What is CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal authority for?

A penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not automatically leviable merely because a higher income is declared, even after a search or in a voluntarily revised return. The initial burden to prove concealment or inaccurate particulars lies with the Revenue.

179

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal · 251 ITR 9 · Section 271(1)(c) penalty · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · burden of proof · voluntary revised return · higher income declared after search · automatic penalty · Section 139(4) revised return

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

section 90(3)section 65(b)section 276section 65b(4)section 163section 153b(1)house property incomeazadi bachao andolansection 65bsection 90(2)section 65furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

Judgments citing CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4800/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 1Section 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)

…t (P) Ltd. vi) 145 Taxman 530 (Del) CIT v. Globe Sales Corporation vii) 219 ITR 267 (Del) CIT v. J. K. Synthetics Limited viii) 160 ITR 94 (AP) (FB) CIT V. H. Abdul Bakshi ix) 219 CTR 447 (Kar) Bhadra Advancing (P) Ltd. v. ACIT x) 241 ITR 124 (MP) affirmed in 251 ITR 9 (SC) CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal "It is well settled that under section 271(1)(e) the initial burden lies on the Revenue to establish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The burden shifts to the assessee only if he fails to offer any explanation for the undisclosed income or offers an…

Sandeep Jalan, Guwahati vs. DCIT/ACIT Cir-1, Guwahati

Appeal is allowed

ITA 157/GTY/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Dated 08.12.2023, Under The Income Tax Act, 1961. 1. Period Of Delay: There Is A Delay Of 494 Days In Filing The Said Appeal

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…here was no intention to conceal any particulars of income from the revenue and such intention was duly expressed through the assessee’s letter dated 18.01.2016. At this stage, we need to refer to the headnotes to the case of Suresh Chandra Mittal reported in 251 ITR 9 (SC) in which the head notes are relevant: “Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Penalty – For concealment of income- Tribunal; cancelled penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) on the ground that department had not discharged its burden of proving concealment and had simply rested its conclusion on assessee’s act of voluntary surrender…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Nevales Networks Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4827/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-14(1)(1), M/S. Nevales Networks Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, The Capital, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Level 7, Plot-C70, M.K.Road, G Block, Mumbai-400020. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aadcn1748A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Piyush Chhajed Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChhajedFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…r, the levy of penalty is not an automatic concomitant of the assessment. Therefore, safeguards have been provided for in the Act itself to see that penalties are levied only in appropriate cases. The Apex Court in the case of SURESHCHANDRA MITTAL reported in 251 ITR 9, held that higher income offered after search would not lead to levy of penalty automatically. The Apex Court in the case of DILIP SHROFF reported in 291 ITR 529, at Page 547 at para 62 has observed that finding in assessment proceedings cannot automatically be adopted in penalty proceedings 10 and the authorities have to consider the matter afres…

Gaurav Ajmera, Ratlam vs. DCIT(Central)-2, Indore

Accordingly, Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 808/IND/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 115BSection 131Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 234ASection 271ASection 274

…Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (supra). It is further pointed out that the SLP filed by the Deptt. before the Apex Court on 5.8.2016 in the matter of CIT V/s. SSA'S Emerald Meadows (supra) was dismissed. In the case of CIT V/s. Suresh Chandra Mittal (2000) 251 ITR 9 (SC), the Apex Court has upheld the decision of M.P. High Court wherein, in similar circumstances, it was held that the initial burden lies on the revenue to establish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. In the present case, in show-cause notice the Assessing Officer has not specified s…

Ganesh Subhash Dhayarkar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 752/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…ew held that assessee had revised his return voluntarily and therefore no penalty is leviable. This judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has been subsequently affirmed by Hon’ble Apex Court reported in CIT Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal reported in (2001) 251 ITR 9. 7. Examining the facts of the instant case in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Mittal (supra) we find that in the instant case, the revised return of income has been filed within the prescribed time limit provided u/s.139(4) of the Act and the same has been accepted by ld. Assessing Offic…

Monish Ranjan Dasgupta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 61(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2447/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

…or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. He had simply accepted the returned income u/s 148. Hence assessee's case is covered by the decisions referred to above and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) will not be imposable. In CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2001] 251 ITR 963 (SC) the assessee filed revised returns showing higher income after search and notice for reopening of assessment, to purchase peace and avoid litigation and Department simply rested its conclusion on the act of voluntary surrender done by the assessee in good faith, High Court was justified in holding that no penalty could be levied. The assesse…

Prem Chawla Legal Heir of Late Smt. Sudesh Chawla, Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhopal

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

ITA 684/IND/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Apr 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 153ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

…anjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (supra). It is further pointed out that the SLP filed by the Deptt. before the Apex Court on 5.8.2016 in the matter of CIT V/s. SSA'S Emerald Meadows (supra) was dismissed. In the case of CIT V/s. Suresh Chandra Mittal, (2000) 251 ITR 9 (SC), the Apex Court has upheld the decision of M.P. High Court wherein, in similar circumstances, it was held that the initial burden lies on the revenue to establish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. In the present case, in show- cause notice the Assessing Officer has not specified…

Prem Chawla Legal Heir of Late Smt. Sudesh Chawla, Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhopal

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

ITA 682/IND/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Apr 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 153ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

…anjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (supra). It is further pointed out that the SLP filed by the Deptt. before the Apex Court on 5.8.2016 in the matter of CIT V/s. SSA'S Emerald Meadows (supra) was dismissed. In the case of CIT V/s. Suresh Chandra Mittal, (2000) 251 ITR 9 (SC), the Apex Court has upheld the decision of M.P. High Court wherein, in similar circumstances, it was held that the initial burden lies on the revenue to establish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. In the present case, in show- cause notice the Assessing Officer has not specified…

Prem Chawla Legal Heir of Late Smt. Sudesh Chawla, Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhopal

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

ITA 681/IND/2024[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Apr 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 153ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

…anjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (supra). It is further pointed out that the SLP filed by the Deptt. before the Apex Court on 5.8.2016 in the matter of CIT V/s. SSA'S Emerald Meadows (supra) was dismissed. In the case of CIT V/s. Suresh Chandra Mittal, (2000) 251 ITR 9 (SC), the Apex Court has upheld the decision of M.P. High Court wherein, in similar circumstances, it was held that the initial burden lies on the revenue to establish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. In the present case, in show- cause notice the Assessing Officer has not specified…

Prem Chawla, Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhopal

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

ITA 678/IND/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Apr 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 153ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

…anjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (supra). It is further pointed out that the SLP filed by the Deptt. before the Apex Court on 5.8.2016 in the matter of CIT V/s. SSA'S Emerald Meadows (supra) was dismissed. In the case of CIT V/s. Suresh Chandra Mittal, (2000) 251 ITR 9 (SC), the Apex Court has upheld the decision of M.P. High Court wherein, in similar circumstances, it was held that the initial burden lies on the revenue to establish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. In the present case, in show- cause notice the Assessing Officer has not specified…

Amitabha Sanyal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-58(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

ITA 359/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Nov 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amitabha Sanyal, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 254(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. He had simply accepted the returned income u/s 148. Hence assessee's case is covered by the decisions referred to above and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) will not be imposable. In CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2001] 251 ITR 963 (SC) the assessee filed revised returns showing higher income after search and notice for reopening of assessment, to purchase peace and avoid litigation and Department simply rested its conclusion on the act of voluntary surrender done by the I.T.A. No. 327/Del/2014 Assessment year 2008- 09 assessee in good faith, High Court was justified in hol…

Sarat Gopal Boppana, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 635/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.635/Hyd/2022 & Sa No.49/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Sarat Gopal Boppana Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Afcpb8083K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/08/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…39 of the Act and penalty has to be levied on income assessed over and above income returned u/s 153A, if any. The learned Counsel for the assessee further referring to decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal, [2001] 251 ITR 9 (S.C) submitted that voluntary surrender of income in good faith cannot be considered as concealment of income. Therefore, he submitted that the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A) erred in sustaining the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 9. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the orders of the authorities below su…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-9 vs. Amul Gabrani

The appeal is allowed and the questions raised are

ITA/1251/2018HC Delhi24 Jul 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 271Section 271A

…by the Department whatsoever and the surrender was made to buy peace and to avoid litigation with the Department in the spirit of cooperation. xxxx xxxx xxxx Considering the totality of facts and the decision in CIT vs. Suresh Chander Mittal (251 ITR 9) (MP), we find merit in the conclusion drawn by the Ld CIT (A) and confirm the same, resultantly the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed." 4. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that we prima facie find merit in the submission of Mr. Maratha, that a mere surrender of income would not absolve the assessee from the levy of penalty. 5. We are thus of…

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 546/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

…l question of law arose from Tribunal's order and, thus, same deserved to be upheld - Whether Special leave petition filed against impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Paras 3 and 4] [In favour of assessee].” 6.5 CIT vs Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC) (DC 6-7). 7.1 The reason behind such unintended mistake was that at the relevant point of time (between the period from 2011-2016), the assessee was posted at Ladakh, and as the said period was quite hectic for him because of considerable movement at the border. Being at a very remote place, without proper internet connectivity in those days,…

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 545/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

…l question of law arose from Tribunal's order and, thus, same deserved to be upheld - Whether Special leave petition filed against impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Paras 3 and 4] [In favour of assessee].” 6.5 CIT vs Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC) (DC 6-7). 7.1 The reason behind such unintended mistake was that at the relevant point of time (between the period from 2011-2016), the assessee was posted at Ladakh, and as the said period was quite hectic for him because of considerable movement at the border. Being at a very remote place, without proper internet connectivity in those days,…

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 544/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

…l question of law arose from Tribunal's order and, thus, same deserved to be upheld - Whether Special leave petition filed against impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Paras 3 and 4] [In favour of assessee].” 6.5 CIT vs Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC) (DC 6-7). 7.1 The reason behind such unintended mistake was that at the relevant point of time (between the period from 2011-2016), the assessee was posted at Ladakh, and as the said period was quite hectic for him because of considerable movement at the border. Being at a very remote place, without proper internet connectivity in those days,…

Kalipada Saha, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward-24(3), Hooghly.

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1191/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…iculars of such income. He had simply accepted the AYs: 2010-11 to 2013-14. returned income u/s 148. Hence assessee's case is covered by the decisions referred to above and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) will not be imposable. 5. In CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2001] 251 ITR 963 (SC) the assessee filed revised returns showing higher income after search and notice for reopening of assessment, to purchase peace and avoid litigation and Department simply rested its conclusion on the act of voluntary surrender done by the I.T.A. No. 327/Del/2014 Assessment year 2008-09 assessee in good faith, High Court was justified in hold…

Kalipada Saha, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward-24(3), Hooghly.

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1190/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…iculars of such income. He had simply accepted the AYs: 2010-11 to 2013-14. returned income u/s 148. Hence assessee's case is covered by the decisions referred to above and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) will not be imposable. 5. In CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2001] 251 ITR 963 (SC) the assessee filed revised returns showing higher income after search and notice for reopening of assessment, to purchase peace and avoid litigation and Department simply rested its conclusion on the act of voluntary surrender done by the I.T.A. No. 327/Del/2014 Assessment year 2008-09 assessee in good faith, High Court was justified in hold…

Kalipada Saha, Hoohly vs. ITO, Ward-24(3), Hooghly.

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1189/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…iculars of such income. He had simply accepted the AYs: 2010-11 to 2013-14. returned income u/s 148. Hence assessee's case is covered by the decisions referred to above and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) will not be imposable. 5. In CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2001] 251 ITR 963 (SC) the assessee filed revised returns showing higher income after search and notice for reopening of assessment, to purchase peace and avoid litigation and Department simply rested its conclusion on the act of voluntary surrender done by the I.T.A. No. 327/Del/2014 Assessment year 2008-09 assessee in good faith, High Court was justified in hold…

Kalipada Saha, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward-24(3), Hooghly

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1188/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…iculars of such income. He had simply accepted the AYs: 2010-11 to 2013-14. returned income u/s 148. Hence assessee's case is covered by the decisions referred to above and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) will not be imposable. 5. In CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2001] 251 ITR 963 (SC) the assessee filed revised returns showing higher income after search and notice for reopening of assessment, to purchase peace and avoid litigation and Department simply rested its conclusion on the act of voluntary surrender done by the I.T.A. No. 327/Del/2014 Assessment year 2008-09 assessee in good faith, High Court was justified in hold…

CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal (251 ITR 9) — Cited in 179 Judgments | BharatTax