CIT v. Vidyagauri Natverlal and Ors.

238 ITR 91High Court1999#6730 most cited
17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54F

Issues it is cited on

section 271aaasection 153(a)section 139(4)furnishing inaccurate particularspenalty under section 271(1)(c)section 271asection 271aapenalty u/s 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomeconcealment of incomesection 271(1)documents seized

Judgments citing CIT v. Vidyagauri Natverlal and Ors.

KHODIYAR ORGANISERS, SURAT,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 36/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.36/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Khodiyar Organisers, Vs. Acit, Central Plaza, Near Om Terrace, Circle – 2(3), New City Light Road, Surat – Surat 395007, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aakfk1498A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2025

Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…oceedings. The CIT(A) has relied on the following decision, viz., Snita Transport Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 42 taxmann.com 54 (Guj.), AM Shah & Co. vs. CIT, 238 ITR 415 (Guj.), Bharatkumar G. Rajani vs. DCIT, 40 taxman.com 344 (Guj.), CIT vs. Vidyagauri Natvartlal, 238 ITR 91 (Guj.), Chemmanchery Estate Co. vs. ITO, 111 taxmann.com 66 (Mad.) and CIT vs. N. Jayprakash, 99 taxmann.com 443 (Ker.). Accordingly, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that the…

DCIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL VACHANI, DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2604/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

For Appellant: S/Shri Anuj Garg & Narpat Singh, Sr.DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Rohan Khare & Priyam
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “ जी ”, िद"ी "ी महावीरिसंह, उपा"" (तृतीयसद"), "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी अवधेशकुमारिम"ा, लेखाकार सद"के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESDIENT (THIRD MEMBER), SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRIAVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17) ITA N0.2604/DEL/2023(A.Y.2016-17) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 22(2), R.No 225E, 2nd Floor, CR Building, IP Estate, New Delhi 110002 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Sahil Vachani, S-43, Panchsheel Park, Delhi 110017 PAN: ADJPV-6597-K .....…

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 253/AHD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…learly applicable in the case of appellant. 7.9 Reliance is also placed on the following decisions for penalty in the instant case:- (i) The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner of Income- tax v. Vidyagauri Natverlal [1999] 238 ITR 91 (GUJ.) [06- 11-1998] had passed the judgement in favour of Revenue. The head note of the judgement is as under:- "Whether particulars furnished by assessee are true and correct or whether particulars furnished are inaccurate and whether particulars furnished are in accurate or incorrect to his knowledge, all are questions which require an inquiry…

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 252/AHD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…learly applicable in the case of appellant. 7.9 Reliance is also placed on the following decisions for penalty in the instant case:- (i) The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner of Income- tax v. Vidyagauri Natverlal [1999] 238 ITR 91 (GUJ.) [06- 11-1998] had passed the judgement in favour of Revenue. The head note of the judgement is as under:- "Whether particulars furnished by assessee are true and correct or whether particulars furnished are inaccurate and whether particulars furnished are in accurate or incorrect to his knowledge, all are questions which require an inquiry…

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 251/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…learly applicable in the case of appellant. 7.9 Reliance is also placed on the following decisions for penalty in the instant case:- (i) The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner of Income- tax v. Vidyagauri Natverlal [1999] 238 ITR 91 (GUJ.) [06- 11-1998] had passed the judgement in favour of Revenue. The head note of the judgement is as under:- "Whether particulars furnished by assessee are true and correct or whether particulars furnished are inaccurate and whether particulars furnished are in accurate or incorrect to his knowledge, all are questions which require an inquiry…

RAJESH KUMAR BAID,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 501/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 501, 494 & 499/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year :2015-16 (u/s 271(1)(c) 271B & 271A of the Act,1961) Shri Rajesh Kumar Baid B-10, Tulsidasji Ki Bagichi Janta Colony, Jaipur 302 004 (Raj) cuke Vs. The ITO Ward 5(2) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABZPB 7205 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Mrs. Mo

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271B

…g case laws. 1. CIT v. Gates 91 ITR 467 2. Cement Distributors v.CIT 60 ITR 586 4 SHRI RAJESH KUMAR BAID VS ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR 3. CIT v. Premier Breweries 244 ITR 598 4 CIT v. Vilasben 192 ITR 214 5. CIT v. Abdulgafur 199 ITR 827 & 6. CIT v. Vidhyagauri 238 ITR 91. 5.11 In the light of the foregoing discussion and the judicial decisions, penalty levied by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing particulars of income amounting to Rs. 13,558/- is hereby confirmed.’’ Section 271B of the Act ‘’5.1 I have carefully gone through the penalty order and the submissions made by the appellant against the penal…

SHRI SURESH MAL LODHA, 537-38, MAHIMA TRINITY, NEW SANGANER ROAD, SWEJ FARM, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 968/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahenda Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…O relied upon various case laws. SURESH MAL LODHA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR 1. Samson Maritime Ltd. vs CIT (Bombay High Court dated 7-03-2017) 2. Mak Data 258 ITR 593 (SC) 3. Dharmendra Textiles Processors (2007) 295 ITR 244 4. CIT vs Vidyagauri Natwar Lal, 238 ITR 91 (Guj) Taking all these facts into consideration, the AO was satisfied that the assessee had concealed income of Rs.23,33,440/- and the assessee is liable for penalty u/s 271(1)© of the Act. Thus the AO computed the penalty amount of Rs.7,93,130/- and levied the same upon the assessee u/s 271(1)© of the Act. 3.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) h…

SHRI GHANSHYAM DUNGARBHAI SUTARIYA,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-8,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2971/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ghanshyam Dungarbhai Sutaria, Vs. Acit, Circle-8, H.No. 1, 1St Floor, Sahaj Park Row Surat House, Hira Baug Circle, Vallabhacharya Road, Near Kailashdham Society, Ashwanikumar Road, Surat-395008 (Pan: Akkpp9318E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…is case of ‘facts proved' as the transactions regarding the sale of property and bank entries have not been disclosed as not return of income has been filed nor recorded in the books of accounts. Similar as been expressed in the case of Vidvaqauri Natwarlal, 238 ITR 91 (Guj). Similar view has also been expressed in the following cases of jurisdictional High Court:- - Kantilal Manilal v. CIT [1981] 130 ITR 411 (Guj ): - CIT v. Suleman Abdul Sattar [1983] 139 ITR 8 (Guj); - CIT v. Namlabhai Bhanabhai [1987] 165 WR 189 (Guj); - CIT v. Vilasben Hasmukhlal Shah (Smt.) [1991] 192 ITR 214 (Guj); - CIT v. Abdulgafur Ah…

M/S. DDIT (I.T.) - 1(2), MUMBAI vs. DHL OPERATIONS B.V., NETHERLANDS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3457/MUM/2008[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…disclosure of material M/s.DHL Operations BV Netherlands it could not be said that the conduct of assessee attracted provisions of sec.271(1)(c). Penalty was held unjustified. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has discussed the case of CIT vs. Vidyagauri Natvarlal 238 ITR 91 (Guj) and has held as under: “What is required to be considered is whether there was any enquiry that was required to be made by the Assessing Officer before concluding that the assessee had furnished inaccurate or false particulars. In this case we are of the view that no such enquiry was required to be made but there was only the need for applic…

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VINAMRA UNIVERSAL TRADERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 2018/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Dy. C.I.T. – 8(3)(2) M/S. Vinamra Universal Room No. 615, 6Th Floor Traders Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Jai Centre, 1St Floor Mumbai 400020 34, P. D’Mello Rd., Opp. Red Gate Mumbai 400009 Pan – Aaccv5090J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. S. Padmaja & Shri S.K. PodarFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Mehta & Shri Govind Javeri
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 94(7)

…eptable. The A.O. then relying upon the decision given in the case of CIT vs. Gates 91 1TR 467, Cement Distributors vs. CIT 60 ITR 586, CIT vs. Premier Breweries 244 ITR 598, CIT vs. Vilasben 192 ITR 214, CIT vs. Abdulgafur 199 ITR 827 and CIT vs. Vidhyagauri 238 ITR 91, levied penalty @ 100% of the tax sought to be evade so, at Rs. 1,90,84,194/-. 3.3 During the appellate proceedings, appellant have submitted as under: Applicability of provisions of section 94(7) was accepted by the Appellant during the course of assessment proceeding. Accordingly, during the course of assessment proceeding, loss claimed amountin…

M/S. STATE BANK OF MAURITIUS LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DY DIT (INT TAX) 2(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3139/MUM/2008[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2000-2001
For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri T.R. Paite-Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “एल मुंबई एल एल” खंडपीठ एल खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“L”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अिमत शु"ल "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amit Shukla,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./3139/Mum/2008,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2000-01 वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./3140/Mum/2008,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2001-02 वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./3141/Mum/2008,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessmen…

ADIT - 3(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. LINKLATERS (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LINKLATER & PAINES), MUMBAI

ITA 7085/MUM/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2016AY 2000-2001
For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chauhan-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…अिधकरण, ‘एल’ खंडपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “L” BENCH सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं राम लाल नेगी एवं राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी, , , , "याियक सद"य राम लाल नेगी "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.7081/Mum/2005,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-1996-97 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" ADIT-(IT)…

ACIT 15(3), MUMBAI vs. NEELKANTH PALM REALTY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3922/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Gyneshwar KataramFor Respondent: Shri S.R.Kirtane
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…he legal position, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied and did not agree with the assessee but that by itself is not a ground to invoke the penalty provision of the statute. 6. Learned Counsel for the Revenue relied upon crr v. Vidyagauri Natverlal [1999] 238 ITR 91 (Guj.). In that case the question that arose was of unexplained cash credit. The Gujarat High Court made a distinction between a wrong claim as opposed to a false claim. In that case, the Assessing Officer needed to make an enquiry as to whether the claim of the assessee was right or not. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the decision cite…

M/s. De vs. ons Pvt. Ltd

ITA/296/2006HC Delhi29 Nov 2010
Section 133(6)Section 271

…Page 41 of 42 that by itself is not a ground to invoke the penalty provision of the statute. 6. Learned Counsel for the Revenue relied upon CIT v. Vidyagauri Natverlal and Ors. [1999] 238 ITR 91(Guj). In that case the question that arose was of unexplained cash credit. The Gujarat High Court made a distinction between a wrong claim as opposed to a false claim. In that case, the AO needed to make an enquiry as to whether the claim of the assessed was right or not. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the decision cited by learn…

M/S DE vs. ONS PVT LTDVS.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX &

ITA - 367 / 2004HC Delhi19 Nov 2010
Section 133(6)Section 271

…Page 41 of 42 that by itself is not a ground to invoke the penalty provision of the statute. 6. Learned Counsel for the Revenue relied upon CIT v. Vidyagauri Natverlal and Ors. [1999] 238 ITR 91(Guj). In that case the question that arose was of unexplained cash credit. The Gujarat High Court made a distinction between a wrong claim as opposed to a false claim. In that case, the AO needed to make an enquiry as to whether the claim of the assessed was right or not. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the decision cited by learn…

M/s. De vs. ons Pvt. Ltd

ITA/367/2004HC Delhi19 Nov 2010
Section 133(6)Section 271

…Page 41 of 42 that by itself is not a ground to invoke the penalty provision of the statute. 6. Learned Counsel for the Revenue relied upon CIT v. Vidyagauri Natverlal and Ors. [1999] 238 ITR 91(Guj). In that case the question that arose was of unexplained cash credit. The Gujarat High Court made a distinction between a wrong claim as opposed to a false claim. In that case, the AO needed to make an enquiry as to whether the claim of the assessed was right or not. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the decision cited by learn…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI IV vs. ESCORTS FINANCE LTD.

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA/1005/2008HC Delhi24 Aug 2009

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

Section 271(1)(c)Section 35DSection 35D(2)

…ndustrial undertaking for their extension or for setting up a new industrial unit. It was, thus, not a ‘wrong claim’ preferred by the assessee, but is a clear case of ‘false claim’. In Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Vidyagauri Natverlal and others, [1999] 238 ITR 91, Gujarat High Court made a distinction between wrong claim as opposed to false claim and held that if the claim is found to be false, the same would attract penalty. We may also take note of the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others v. Dharmendra Textile Processors and Others, (2008) 13 SCC 369…