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 366,314 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

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. S & P Foundation P. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 2084/CHNY/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2084/Chny/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. S & P Foundation P. Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle Iv(2), Vs. Old No. 27, New No. 38, Madley Road, 46, Nungambakkam High Road, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Aaics0224K] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & : Shri I Dinesh, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 02.12.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ii, Chennai, Dated 05.12.2012 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2006-07 In Pursuance To The Order Of The Assessing Officer In Levying Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मऺजुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" । Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2084/Chny/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 The Assistant Commissioner of M/s. S & P Foundation P. Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle IV(2), Vs. Old No. 27, New No. 38, Madley Road, 46, Nungambakkam High Road, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Chennai. [PAN: AAICS0224K] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by Shri G. Joh…

Ms. Binna Nitin Parikh, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2604/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blems. Binna Nitin Parikh V. Acit – Circle – 19(1) W1, Sudantta Apartments Room No. 203, 2Nd Floor 10A Mount Pleasant Road Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Malabar Hill, Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai – 400 007 Pan: Aadpp1671P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Hirawat Department By : Shri C.T. Mathews

For Appellant: Shri Sunil HirawatFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35(1)(ii)

…is some element of deliberate default and not a mere mistake. This being the position, the furnishing of inaccurate particulars was simply a mistake and not a deliberate attempt to evade tax. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal 251 ITR 9 (SC) observed that where assessee has surrendered the income after persistence queries by the AO and where revised return has been regularized by the Revenue, explanation of the assessee that he has declared additional income to buy peach of mind and to come out of waxed litigation could be treated as bona fide, accordingly levy of penalty under s.…

ACIT, Circle-9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Golkunda Diamonds & Jewellery Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5507/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti SatheFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa
Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…me. Thus we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act." 6.1.8 I further reply on following decisions for my view that penalty cannot be levied on addition made on agreed basis. a) CIT v/s Suresh Chandra Mittals (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC). b) CIT v/s Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (Ker. HC) 6.1.9 With the consideration of all the above judgements, it is clear that where appellant has failed to produce creditor parties in respect of alleged Bogus Purchases while he submitted all other details and evidences and additions been made, It was held that 7 Golkunda Diamonds & Je…

Income Tax Officer-9(3)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Goldstar Jewellery India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5466/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…er to delete the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act." 4.1.8 I further reply on following decisions for my view that 7 Goldstar Jewellery India Pvt. Ltd. penalty cannot be levied on addition made on agreed basis. a) CIT v/s Suresh Chandra Mittals (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC). b) CIT v/s Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (Ker. HC) 4.1.9 With the consideration of all the above judgements, it is clear that where appellant has failed to produce creditor parties in respect of alleged Bogus Purchases while he submitted all other details and evidences and additions been made, It was held that where explanation of the…

DCIT(Central)-2, Indore vs. M/S Kalyan Toll Highway Pvt.Ltd, Indore

ITA 85/IND/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Dcit(Central)-2 M/S. Kalyan Toll Highway Pvt. Ltd. Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No. Aadck9401F Appellant By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M:

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…on 1 of section 271(1)(c) cannot be invoked in the search cases 5.1.11 The appellant also get support from the decision of Honourable M. P. High Court which has also been upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vis Suresh Chand Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9, wherein it was held that where the assessee filed revised return showing higher income after search and notice for reopening of assessment and the department simply rested its conclusions on the action of surrender made by the assessee, no penalty u/s 271(1)© could be lavied. Though in the present appeal befoe me, the AO has not made any addition,…

The D C I T -3(1), Indore vs. Shri Deepak Kalra, Indore

In the result appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 679/IND/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2009-10

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

…for concealment of income. The AO considering the entire facts on record levied penalty u/s 271(I)(c). In AY 2009-10. It has been held by Hon’ble M.P. High Court which has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Suresh Chandra Mittal [2001] 251 ITR 9, that where the assessee filed revised return showing higher income after search and notice for re-opening of assessment to purchases peace and avoid litigation, the department simply rested its conclusion on the Act of voluntarily surrendered done by the assessee in good faith. High court was justified in holding that no penalty could be levied. I…

The DCIT-Central-2, Indore vs. M/S. Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd., Indore

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

ITA 878/IND/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36

…rate particulars of income, which is also not in accordance with law. The appellant also get support from the decision of Honourable M. P. High Court which has also been upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vis Suresh Chand Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9, herein it was held that where the assessee filed revised return showing higher income 27 Keti Construction (India) Ltd & Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd. ITA Nos. 877 & 878/Ind/2019 after search and notice for reopening of assessment and the department simply rested its conclusions on the action of surrender made by the assessee, no penalty u/s 27…

The DCIT (Central), Indore vs. M/S Keti Construction (India) Ltd., Indore

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

ITA 877/IND/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36

…rate particulars of income, which is also not in accordance with law. The appellant also get support from the decision of Honourable M. P. High Court which has also been upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vis Suresh Chand Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9, herein it was held that where the assessee filed revised return showing higher income 27 Keti Construction (India) Ltd & Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd. ITA Nos. 877 & 878/Ind/2019 after search and notice for reopening of assessment and the department simply rested its conclusions on the action of surrender made by the assessee, no penalty u/s 27…

Shri Niral Krupesh Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(3), Baroda

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

ITA 563/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Aug 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273A

…. [Para 16] 9.10 We also draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal reported in [2000] 241 ITR 124 (MP) which was also affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in [2001] 251 ITR 9 (SC) wherein it was held as under: It is well-settled that under section 271(1)(c ), the initial burden lies on the revenue to establish that the assessee has concealed the income or has 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…

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

…s 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 the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 14,53,833/- . Hence,…

Shri Chandresh Roshnalal Jain, Godhra vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1272/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1272/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Shri Chandresh Roshanlal Jain, A.C.I.T., B-1, Centre Point, Vs. Panchmahal Circle, Nr. S.T. Stand, Godhra. Godhra.

For Appellant: Ms Urvashi Shodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vidhyut Trivedi, Sr.D.R
Section 131Section 131(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…nating material pertaining to the appellant found at searched premises was raised by AO. Appellant is not exigible to levy of penalty on suo moto declaration of additional income to buy peace and to avoid lengthy litigations as held in 1. Suresh Chand Mittal 251 ITR 9 (SC) 2. Dilip N Shroff 291 ITR 519 (SC) 3. T. Ashok Pai 292 ITR 11(SC) 4. Manjunath Cotton 359 ITR 565 (Kar) (Distinguishing Mak Data) 8. On the other hand, the learned DR submitted that the assessee has disclosed the impugned income on account of the search proceedings conducted at M/s Dhanjimama Group. Had there not been a search, the income of…

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)

…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 made by the AO on an estimate basis. Considering these facts…

Sandeep Bhimrao Lad, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-3, Thane

ITA 1620/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1620/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 271Section 274

…because positive income of 19 I.T.A. No. 1617 to 1620/Mum/2018 Sandeep Bhimrao Lad & Sunny Ashok Lad assessee was reduced to nil after allowing set-off of carried forward losses of earlier years 12.K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs CIT [[2001] 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/[2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC)/[200t] 169 CTR 489 (SC)] where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where assessee was unable to furnish evidence for loans and it offered amount of transaction as additional income, Assessing Officer was justified in imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) after finding the explanation to be unacceptable and applying Explanation 1(B) of the section. 13.…

S.Sathyanarayanan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 756/CHNY/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2019AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271

…the course of search and paid tax on such undisclosed income and therefore levy of penalty is not warranted and he also placed reliance ITA Nos.754 to 756/2015 :- 6 -: on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal, 251 ITR 9. He further contended that the ld. CIT(A) ought not have upheld the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data (P) Ltd vs. CIT, 38 taxmann.com 448. Further, he submitted that relevant column in the show cause notice was not struck off, therefore he filed the additional grounds of appeal, wherein it was stated as under:-. ‘’1. The…

S.Sathyanarayanan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 755/CHNY/2015[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271

…the course of search and paid tax on such undisclosed income and therefore levy of penalty is not warranted and he also placed reliance ITA Nos.754 to 756/2015 :- 6 -: on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal, 251 ITR 9. He further contended that the ld. CIT(A) ought not have upheld the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data (P) Ltd vs. CIT, 38 taxmann.com 448. Further, he submitted that relevant column in the show cause notice was not struck off, therefore he filed the additional grounds of appeal, wherein it was stated as under:-. ‘’1. The…

S.Sathyanarayanan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 754/CHNY/2015[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2019AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271

…the course of search and paid tax on such undisclosed income and therefore levy of penalty is not warranted and he also placed reliance ITA Nos.754 to 756/2015 :- 6 -: on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal, 251 ITR 9. He further contended that the ld. CIT(A) ought not have upheld the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data (P) Ltd vs. CIT, 38 taxmann.com 448. Further, he submitted that relevant column in the show cause notice was not struck off, therefore he filed the additional grounds of appeal, wherein it was stated as under:-. ‘’1. The…

Shri Nagendra Choudhary, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 611/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: The Tribunal. Only When The Assessee Enquired About

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain (Advocate) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha (Addl. CIT)
Section 271A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh- 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa h Jh fot; iky jkWo] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C. SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 611/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15. cuke Shri Nagendra Choudhary The DCIT, Vs. 232, Himmat Nagar, Tonk Road, Central Circle-2, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. ABSPC 5437 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.L. Jain (Advocate) & Shri Hemant Bansal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@…

Mutha Parasram Dhanaji & Co, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4032/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271Section 274

…Dhanaji &Co. firm in the return of income filed u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act 1961, which was declared due to mistakes observed and also on certain seized documents. In this respect, Ld. Counsel relied on the following authorities: i) Suresh Chandra Mittal (251 ITR 9) (SC) "Penalty under s. 271(1)(c)—Concealment—Revised return filed showing higher income - Assessee surrendered the income after persistent queries by AO---However, revised returns have been regularized by Revenue— Explanation of the assessee that he has declared additional income to buy peace and to come out of vexed litigation could be treated as…

Mutha Parasram Dhanaji & Co, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4031/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271Section 274

…Dhanaji &Co. firm in the return of income filed u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act 1961, which was declared due to mistakes observed and also on certain seized documents. In this respect, Ld. Counsel relied on the following authorities: i) Suresh Chandra Mittal (251 ITR 9) (SC) "Penalty under s. 271(1)(c)—Concealment—Revised return filed showing higher income - Assessee surrendered the income after persistent queries by AO---However, revised returns have been regularized by Revenue— Explanation of the assessee that he has declared additional income to buy peace and to come out of vexed litigation could be treated as…

Mutha Parasram Dhanaji & Co, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4030/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271Section 274

…Dhanaji &Co. firm in the return of income filed u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act 1961, which was declared due to mistakes observed and also on certain seized documents. In this respect, Ld. Counsel relied on the following authorities: i) Suresh Chandra Mittal (251 ITR 9) (SC) "Penalty under s. 271(1)(c)—Concealment—Revised return filed showing higher income - Assessee surrendered the income after persistent queries by AO---However, revised returns have been regularized by Revenue— Explanation of the assessee that he has declared additional income to buy peace and to come out of vexed litigation could be treated as…