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

P. Saranya, Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

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

ITA 2396/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…

R. Maheswari, Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

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

ITA 2395/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. Damotharan, Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

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

ITA 2394/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. Kamala, Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

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

ITA 2393/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…

H. Pradeepa, Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

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

ITA 2392/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. Harikrishnan, Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

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

ITA 2391/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. Ananthi, Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

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

ITA 2390/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. Harikrishnan (HUF), Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

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

ITA 2389/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…

A. Geetha, Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

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

ITA 2452/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. Ashok Kumar, Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

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

ITA 2451/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 (HUF), Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

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

ITA 2388/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…

Prasanna. G., Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

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

ITA 2387/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. Damotharan (HUF), Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

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

ITA 2386/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…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7249/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…e of MAK Data (supra), which however had been lost sight of by the A.O while placing reliance on the same. We rather find that our aforesaid view stands fortified by the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC), wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court upholding the order of the Hon‟ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh had concluded that where an assessee after being subjected to Search and seizure action under Sec. 132 had offered additional income in its „return of income‟ filed in compliance to the notice issued under Sec. 148, in order to buy peace of mind and…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7248/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…e of MAK Data (supra), which however had been lost sight of by the A.O while placing reliance on the same. We rather find that our aforesaid view stands fortified by the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC), wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court upholding the order of the Hon‟ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh had concluded that where an assessee after being subjected to Search and seizure action under Sec. 132 had offered additional income in its „return of income‟ filed in compliance to the notice issued under Sec. 148, in order to buy peace of mind and…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7247/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…e of MAK Data (supra), which however had been lost sight of by the A.O while placing reliance on the same. We rather find that our aforesaid view stands fortified by the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC), wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court upholding the order of the Hon‟ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh had concluded that where an assessee after being subjected to Search and seizure action under Sec. 132 had offered additional income in its „return of income‟ filed in compliance to the notice issued under Sec. 148, in order to buy peace of mind and…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7246/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…e of MAK Data (supra), which however had been lost sight of by the A.O while placing reliance on the same. We rather find that our aforesaid view stands fortified by the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC), wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court upholding the order of the Hon‟ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh had concluded that where an assessee after being subjected to Search and seizure action under Sec. 132 had offered additional income in its „return of income‟ filed in compliance to the notice issued under Sec. 148, in order to buy peace of mind and…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7245/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…e of MAK Data (supra), which however had been lost sight of by the A.O while placing reliance on the same. We rather find that our aforesaid view stands fortified by the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC), wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court upholding the order of the Hon‟ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh had concluded that where an assessee after being subjected to Search and seizure action under Sec. 132 had offered additional income in its „return of income‟ filed in compliance to the notice issued under Sec. 148, in order to buy peace of mind and…

Rajendra Kumar Sharda, Jaipur vs. ITO, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 150/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Neene Jeph (JCIT)
Section 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…right person assessable to tax qua the said income—Therefore, penalty under s. 271(1)(c) is not leviable.” 9.3 Also kindly refer Late Shri Babu Bhai v/s ACIT in ITA No. 633/Jp/2015 for A.Y. 2006-07 on dated 28.06.2016. 9.4 CIT vs Suresh Chandra mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC), CIT vs. SAS pharmaceuticals (2011) 335 ITR 0259 (Del) and CIT vs. Pushpendra Surana (2013) 96 DTR 0231 (Raj). 10 Supporting general case laws: 10.1 The word “concealment” inherently carried with it the element of mensrea. To impose a penalty u/s 271(1)(c), it has to be proved that the assessee has consciously made the concealment or furnish…

Sadhana Nitro Chem Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 6287/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhsadhana Nitro Chem Ltd. Dcit 7(2), Hira Baug, 1St Floor, Room No. 670, 6Th Floor, Kasturba Chowk (C.P. Tank), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai – 400 004. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aabcs1231R

For Appellant: Shri V.Mohan (AR)For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ffered the deduction claimed on account of purchases for taxation. We have further noted that the AO has no other material except for surrender of the deduction on account of purchases. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC) held that if assessee offered the additional income to buy peace of mind and to avoid litigation, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. We have noted that AO has not brought any material on record to show the malafide intention of the assessee about the concealment of income. There is no investigation by the AO about the non-ge…