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

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal

Image Finvest & Leasing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-11(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 88/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 Image Finvest & Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward-11(4), Kolkata 200, Block-A, Bangur Avenue, Vs Kolkata-700055 Pan: Aaaci 5378 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Anil Kochar, Ar Respondent By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.01.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…uld be imposed when the assessee revised its return before finalization of assessment. The revised return was regularized by the revenue and at the same time there is no loss to the revenue. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs Sureshchand Mittal, 251 ITR 9 and the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble M.P. High Court in CIT vs Shyamlal Soni 276 ITR 156 support our view. In present case, the assessee offered additional income before finalization of assessment order. The explanation given by the assessee in this regard is that such additional income was declared to buy peace and not to proceed with 3 Image Fi…

R. G. Sundar & Co, Erode vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1600/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1599 & 1600/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. R.G. Sundar & Co., The Deputy Commissioner Erode Feeds Producers, Vs. Of Income Tax, 82, Perundurai Road, Central Circle-2, Perundurai – 638 001. Coimbatore Pan: Aaffr 3771C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate Shri Suraj Nahar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…h no income on account of inflated purchases was disclosed. Can such amount be treated as concealment of income? The ld.counsel for the assessee before us relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal reported in 251 ITR 9, wherein exactly on identical facts, as in the given facts of the case, where assessee filed original return of income and when a search action u/s.132 of the Act was initiated, notice u/s.148 of the Act was served and he filed return in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act disclosing higher income, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Tribunal…

R. G. Sundar & Co, Erode vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1599/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1599 & 1600/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. R.G. Sundar & Co., The Deputy Commissioner Erode Feeds Producers, Vs. Of Income Tax, 82, Perundurai Road, Central Circle-2, Perundurai – 638 001. Coimbatore Pan: Aaffr 3771C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate Shri Suraj Nahar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…h no income on account of inflated purchases was disclosed. Can such amount be treated as concealment of income? The ld.counsel for the assessee before us relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal reported in 251 ITR 9, wherein exactly on identical facts, as in the given facts of the case, where assessee filed original return of income and when a search action u/s.132 of the Act was initiated, notice u/s.148 of the Act was served and he filed return in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act disclosing higher income, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Tribunal…