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

Taneja Rice & Dall Mills, Kanpur vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 548/LKW/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Jan 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoora.Ys. 2003-04

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…served with a notice under section 148, it had filed the "return" giving full particulars of 'surplus' earned on sale of land and keeping in view the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal reported in (2001) 251 ITR 9 and the latest decision in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2012) 348 ITR 306, no penalty was leviable/maintainable.” 2 The grievance of the assessee is against imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, which has been confirmed by the learned CIT(A). 3. At the time of hearing before us, the…

Ram Kumar Gupta, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward- 2(2), Meerut

ITA 4666/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Aggarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 143Section 271(1)(c)

…e without any objection, the same is to be treated as bonafide and relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of CIT vs. Suresh Chand Mittal – (2001) 241 ITR 124 (MP), confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court cited as (2001) 251 ITR 9. 8. However, on the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue to repel the arguments addressed by the ld. AR for the assessee contended that when the assessee has proved to have filed the return when cornered by the AO during assessment proceedings, the penalty has been rightly levied/confirmed and relied upon the decision 5 ITA No.4666/Del./2017 ren…

M/S. Sti (India) Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT-5(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/IND/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Dec 2018AY 2005-06
Section 143(3)Section 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 11 STI(India) Ltd. ITANo.42/Ind/2017 inaccurate particulars of such income. In the present case, in show-cause notice t…

Sanjay Namdeo Bharti, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 155/PUN/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Oct 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri "ी "ी क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा राव लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी "याियक सद"य के सम" "याियक सद"य के सम" D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 155/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri M. K. Verma
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…addition in the quantum case but is not sufficient to penalise the assessee under section 271(l)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. We are unable to agree with the learned Departmental Representative that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC) (supra) shall be applied being later in time than the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in [2001] 251 ITR 9 (SC) (supra) for the reason that both the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court were declared on different grounds. We are also not impressed with the argument of the learned Departmental Representative that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex…

Sh. Karan Khurana, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2698/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Janardan Dass, Senior DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…e pursuant to the notice u/s 148 of the Act without any rider, the question of concealment to particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income does not arise. 14. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case cited as CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal – 251 ITR 9 while deciding the identical issue held that, “when the assessee surrendered additional income by & 2698/Del./2015 way of revised returns after persistent queries by AO once the revised returns have been regularized by Revenue the explanation of the assessee that he has declared additional income to buy peace and to come out of vexed litigation…

Sh. Karan Khurana, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2697/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Janardan Dass, Senior DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…e pursuant to the notice u/s 148 of the Act without any rider, the question of concealment to particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income does not arise. 14. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case cited as CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal – 251 ITR 9 while deciding the identical issue held that, “when the assessee surrendered additional income by & 2698/Del./2015 way of revised returns after persistent queries by AO once the revised returns have been regularized by Revenue the explanation of the assessee that he has declared additional income to buy peace and to come out of vexed litigation…

Sh. Karan Khurana, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2696/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Janardan Dass, Senior DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…e pursuant to the notice u/s 148 of the Act without any rider, the question of concealment to particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income does not arise. 14. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case cited as CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal – 251 ITR 9 while deciding the identical issue held that, “when the assessee surrendered additional income by & 2698/Del./2015 way of revised returns after persistent queries by AO once the revised returns have been regularized by Revenue the explanation of the assessee that he has declared additional income to buy peace and to come out of vexed litigation…

Sh. Karan Khurana, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2695/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Janardan Dass, Senior DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…e pursuant to the notice u/s 148 of the Act without any rider, the question of concealment to particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income does not arise. 14. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case cited as CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal – 251 ITR 9 while deciding the identical issue held that, “when the assessee surrendered additional income by & 2698/Del./2015 way of revised returns after persistent queries by AO once the revised returns have been regularized by Revenue the explanation of the assessee that he has declared additional income to buy peace and to come out of vexed litigation…

M/S Keti Sangam Infrastructure (I) Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT (Central), Indore

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

ITA 1341/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

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

…in the case of the assessee no specific charges were levied in the assessment order as well as penalty show cause notice. 8.3. In this regard, our view is also supported by the decision of Hon 'bIe Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2000] 251 ITR 9(SC), wherein the Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Hon 'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court CIT in the case of Suresh Chandra Mittal [2000] 241 ITR 124 (MP), where 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…

M/S Shree Coal Enterprises (I) Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. The ACIT 3(1), Bhopal

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

ITA 1337/IND/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

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

…in the case of the assessee no specific charges were levied in the assessment order as well as penalty show cause notice. 8.3. In this regard, our view is also supported by the decision of Hon 'bIe Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2000] 251 ITR 9(SC), wherein the Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Hon 'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court CIT in the case of Suresh Chandra Mittal [2000] 241 ITR 124 (MP), where 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…

M/S Keti Sangham Infrastruture (I) Limited, Indore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Indore

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

ITA 516/IND/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

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

…in the case of the assessee no specific charges were levied in the assessment order as well as penalty show cause notice. 8.3. In this regard, our view is also supported by the decision of Hon 'bIe Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2000] 251 ITR 9(SC), wherein the Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Hon 'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court CIT in the case of Suresh Chandra Mittal [2000] 241 ITR 124 (MP), where 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…

Ramesh Chand Bansal, Beawar vs. DCIT, Ajmer

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 398/JPR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jun 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena, JCIT - DR
Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…of concealment/ furnishing inaccurate particulars. The AO invoked Expl. 5A to Sec. 271(1)(c) holding that despite declaring of higher income after the search, penalty can be imposed. He also alleged that the decision of CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC) was not applicable on the facts of the present case. 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the penalty in all the 4 years. For the sake of convenience and brevity of the case, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) for the Assessment 3 Shri Ramesh Chand Bansal vs DCIT, Central Circl…

Vrv Foods Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 5552/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

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

…on record and thus impugned penalty order is liable to be quashed 2. The additions in returned income to the extent of voluntarily admission to mitigate litigation amounts to voluntary surrender and the decision of apex court in case of Suresh Chandra Mittal 251 ITR 9(SC) and Shadi Lal Sugar & General Mills 168 ITR 705(SC) should have been applied for non-levy of penalty. ITA No. 5552/Del./2014 2 3. On facts and circumstances of the case, lower authorities have erred and were not justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on a disallowance of a claim sought to be verified during assessment proceedin…

Amarjeet Beeton HUF, Dhuri vs. ACIT, C-4, Ludhiana

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1546/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumaramarjeet Beeton(Huf) Vs. The Asstt. Ci T Prop. M/S Shiva Udyog, Circle-4 House No. 210, Ward No. 10-B Ludhiana Shivpuri Mohalla, Dhuri

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Bohra
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ereon cannot be made merely on suspicion. 7. The Ld. AR placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Reliance Petro products Pvt. Ltd, 322ITR 158 (SC) and also the ratio laid down in the case of CIT Vs Suresh Chandra Mittal 251 ITR 9 (SC). 8. The Ld. DR argued that the assessee HUF has certainly furnished inaccurate particulars of its income to the extent of Rs.2,16,635/- by introducing cash credit in the name of Smt. Anita Sharma, the genuineness of which could not be established during assessment proceedings. The assessee HUF came forward to surrender an amount of Rs.2,00,00…

S. Ashok Kumar, Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand

ITA 2450/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

…n was made. In those circumstances, the Assessing Officer, after considering the decision of Indore Bench of this Tribunal in Shri Radhey Shyam Sarda and Others v. ACIT 2012 (12 TMI 320) and the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9, found that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty. Accordingly, he dropped the penalty proceeding. 5. The Ld. representative for the assessee further submitted that the Administrative Commissioner in the guise of exercising his revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act, found that dropping the penalty proceeding initiated by the…

G. Prasanna (HUF), Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand

ITA 2401/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

…n was made. In those circumstances, the Assessing Officer, after considering the decision of Indore Bench of this Tribunal in Shri Radhey Shyam Sarda and Others v. ACIT 2012 (12 TMI 320) and the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9, found that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty. Accordingly, he dropped the penalty proceeding. 5. The Ld. representative for the assessee further submitted that the Administrative Commissioner in the guise of exercising his revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act, found that dropping the penalty proceeding initiated by the…

S. Ganapathy, Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand

ITA 2400/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

…n was made. In those circumstances, the Assessing Officer, after considering the decision of Indore Bench of this Tribunal in Shri Radhey Shyam Sarda and Others v. ACIT 2012 (12 TMI 320) and the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9, found that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty. Accordingly, he dropped the penalty proceeding. 5. The Ld. representative for the assessee further submitted that the Administrative Commissioner in the guise of exercising his revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act, found that dropping the penalty proceeding initiated by the…

N. Vishwanathan, Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand

ITA 2399/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

…n was made. In those circumstances, the Assessing Officer, after considering the decision of Indore Bench of this Tribunal in Shri Radhey Shyam Sarda and Others v. ACIT 2012 (12 TMI 320) and the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9, found that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty. Accordingly, he dropped the penalty proceeding. 5. The Ld. representative for the assessee further submitted that the Administrative Commissioner in the guise of exercising his revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act, found that dropping the penalty proceeding initiated by the…

V. Ramesh, Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand

ITA 2398/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

…n was made. In those circumstances, the Assessing Officer, after considering the decision of Indore Bench of this Tribunal in Shri Radhey Shyam Sarda and Others v. ACIT 2012 (12 TMI 320) and the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9, found that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty. Accordingly, he dropped the penalty proceeding. 5. The Ld. representative for the assessee further submitted that the Administrative Commissioner in the guise of exercising his revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act, found that dropping the penalty proceeding initiated by the…

Kamalaveni. V, Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand

ITA 2397/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

…n was made. In those circumstances, the Assessing Officer, after considering the decision of Indore Bench of this Tribunal in Shri Radhey Shyam Sarda and Others v. ACIT 2012 (12 TMI 320) and the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9, found that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty. Accordingly, he dropped the penalty proceeding. 5. The Ld. representative for the assessee further submitted that the Administrative Commissioner in the guise of exercising his revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act, found that dropping the penalty proceeding initiated by the…