Commissioner of Income Tax v. S. Sankaran

241 ITR 825High Court2000#13818 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,254 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 115JB Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 14A

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. S. Sankaran

Mr. Chittaranjan Trimbak Gaikwad, Pune vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 759/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri B.C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…t warrant proof or burden on the revenue to prove things, as it is well-settled legal principle that any proof and manner of proof are all not required when there is an admission. The assessee has mainly relied upon the case laws of CIT Vs S. Shankaran (2000) 241 ITR 825, Mohammad Azim Ullah Vs CIT (1981) 131 ITR 680,CIT Vs Abdul Majeed(1998)232 ITR 50, Sarabhai Chemicals Pvt Ltd Vs CIT, 257 ITR 355 and few more case laws as discussed above in assessee's submission. But none of the case law is useful for the assessee as the facts of the case are different and distinguished. 3 ITA No.759/PUN/2024, AY 2010-11 4.2…

ACIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2898/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Reliance Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit Circle 3(4), 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv 222 Room No. 559, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit-3(4), Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 481(2), 4Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv Aayakar Bhavan, N.M. Road, Vs. Nariman Point, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal

Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 32A

…not be said that there is a prima facie satisfaction regarding furnishing of inaccurate particulars of the claim of expenditure. Accordingly penalty levied u/s 271(1)( c ) was cancelled. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT V/s S. Sankaran (2000) 241 ITR 825(Mad) has held that mere addition of income by disallowing expenses would not be regarded as concealment of income and therefore levy of penalty u/s 271(1)( c ) of the Act was held not to be justified. In the case of CIT V/s Hari Machines Limited (311 ITR 285) (Del) the claim of loss made by assessee, was negated by Revenue authorities as well as…

Shri Anilkumar Amarnath Agarwal, Jamnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 73/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt.Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2013-14 Anilkumaramarnathagarwal Vs. Ito, Ward-1 27/2, Panchvatisociety Jamnagar. Nr.Gaushala Jamnagar 361 008. Gujarat. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26/07/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld.Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…oblige. At this outset I submit following judicial pronouncements where in honourable courts has allowed such mistakes as bonafide and had cancelled the penalties. 1. Bonafide surrender cannot attract penalty as decided in the case of CIT VsSankaran (2000) 241 ITR 825 (MAD) -followed in the case of Pushpaben P Sonarupawala V. ACIT61 TTJ (AHD-TRIB) 486. 4 2. Inadvertent omission is not liable for penalty as decided by CIT V/s Pradipkumar 246 ITR 94 (J & K). 3. Mensrea is important before leving penalty Dilip N. Shroff V. Joint CIT (2007) 16(1) ITCL 246 (SC). Looking to the above situation, the same I submit th…

Arjun Shamdas Bhagtani, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2495/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Mrs. Shweta Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…utiny assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. The Tribunal after placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S. Sankaran reported as 241 ITR 825 deleted levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). The Tribunal held that the additional income declared voluntarily by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings, cannot lead to conclusion that the assessee deliberately concealed the said income in return of income and hence, no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on such addition is warranted. 5 ITA No.…

Sri Joy Barman, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-42(3), Kolkata

ITA 600/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

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

…isions of Section 69 A of the Act. .... Unquote Now your appellant submits the following decisions for your consideration in respect of applicability of the penalty proceedings when the appellant agreed to make additions to income - (a) CIT -vs- Sankaran(S) - 241 ITR 825(Mad) The Madras High COUl1 in the above Case held that- Mere addition to income of the instance of the assesse can not lead to the conclusion of concealment of income and penalty U/s 271 (1)( c) can not be levied. a-I) In CIT -vs- Gururam Dass Fruit and Vegetable Agency- reported in 244 ITR(AT) 146(Chan) held that surrender of amount would not pr…

Sri Joy Barman, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-42(3), Kolkata

ITA 599/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

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

ACIT, CC-X, Kolkata vs. M/S Concast Steel & Power Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1487/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 15Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…iscloses concealed income; hence penalty is not leviable on the basis of this agreed addition of Rs. 5,000. In view of the above, the view taken by the CIT(A) cannot be upheld Thus, the penalty is cancelled—CIT vs. S. Sankaran (2002) 175 CTR (Mad) 62 : (2000) 241 ITR 825 (Mad), CIT vs. Jugal Kishore Har Gopaldas (2000) 161 CTR (Ker) 74 : (2000) 243 ITR 220 (Ker) and CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 170 CTR (SC) 182 : (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC) relied on; India Sea Foods vs. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 124 (Ker), CIT vs. E.V. Rajan (1987) 61 CTR (Mad) 121 : (1985) 151 ITR 189 (Mad) and H.V. Venugopal Chettiar vs. CIT (1985)…