Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chand Bansal

329 ITR 330High Court2010#5772 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chand Bansal authority for?

Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not justified on additional income offered in a revised return, if the offer is a consequence of search action and the assessment order accepts the offer without detailed discussion of the evidence compelling the offer.

20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Suresh Chand Bansal · 329 ITR 330 · penalty u/s 271(1)(c) · revised return · search action · additional income · assessment order · offer of income · penalty not justified

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 132Section 132ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 271(c)section 276csection 138time barred assessmentsection 276bona fide mistakestatement under section 132(4)penalty under section 271(1)(c)penalty u/s 271(1)(c)section 153bblock periodsection 153a(1)

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chand Bansal

BIPIN PRANJIVANDAS SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 27(1)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

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

ITA 1661/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…iance Petro products P. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) 13. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Aero Traders(P.) Ltd., 322 ITR 316, Delhi HC. 14. CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd 328 ITR 44 (Delhi) 15. CIT vs. SSP. Ltd. 328 ITR 643 (P & H.) 16. CIT vs. Suresh Chand Bansal 329 ITR 330(Calcutta) 17. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., 171 Taxman 320 (Punajb & Haryana) 18. Harigopal Singh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 125 Taxman 242 (Punjab & Haryana) 19. CIT vs. Ravail Singh 254 ITR 191(P&H) 20. Hari Om Kumar Umesh Chand vs. ITO. 124 Taxman 213 (Agra) 21. CIT vs. Shivnarayan Jamnalal & Co. 23…

SURESH CHAND BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16 , DELHI

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

ITA 3666/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

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

…ed a revised return and withdrawn some claim of depreciation penalty is not levlable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Suresh Chand Bansal [2010] 329 ITR 330 held that where there was an offer of additional income in the revised return filed by the assessee and such offer is in consequence of a search action, then if the assessment order accepts the offer of the assessee, levy of penalty on such offer is not justified without detailed discussion of the documents and their explanation which compelled t…

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

ITA 3665/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

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

…ed a revised return and withdrawn some claim of depreciation penalty is not levlable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Suresh Chand Bansal [2010] 329 ITR 330 held that where there was an offer of additional income in the revised return filed by the assessee and such offer is in consequence of a search action, then if the assessment order accepts the offer of the assessee, levy of penalty on such offer is not justified without detailed discussion of the documents and their explanation which compelled t…

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

ITA 3664/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

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

…ed a revised return and withdrawn some claim of depreciation penalty is not levlable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Suresh Chand Bansal [2010] 329 ITR 330 held that where there was an offer of additional income in the revised return filed by the assessee and such offer is in consequence of a search action, then if the assessment order accepts the offer of the assessee, levy of penalty on such offer is not justified without detailed discussion of the documents and their explanation which compelled t…

SURESH PRODUCTIONS ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 641/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 641/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Suresh Productions, Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Vs. [Pan No. Aajfs7306J] Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/02/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 29/02/2024 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, (“Learned Cit(A)”), In The Case Of Suresh Productions (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Assessee Preferred This Appeal With A Delay Of One Day. Learned Ar Explained That The Delay Is Due To Calculation Error. Heard Learned Dr. Delay Is Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Waseem UR Rehman, DR
Section 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…the Act and concluded the same with the levy of penalty of Rs. 1.2 lakhs. In appeal, learned CIT(A) confirmed the same. Hence, the assessee is in this appeal. 5. By placing reliance on the decision reported in the cases of CIT vs. Suresh Chand Bansal [2010] 329 ITR 330 (Calcutta) and CIT vs. Suraj Bhan [2007] 159 Taxman 26, he argued that assessee had offered additional income following search and such income had been accepted in entirety without any attempt to obtain explanation of the assessee, no penalty is leviable under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Per contra, learned DR placed reliance on the explana…

KISHAN KUMAR AGARWAL,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 573/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.573/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Kishan Kumar Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Agarwal Central Circle 2(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Ablpa3923C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/01/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2.12.2022 Of The Learned Cit(A)-12, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.17,05,680/- Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…y by virtue of the Act that such return showed a higher income, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot automatically be imposed: i) CIT v. Suraj Bhan (2007) 294 ITR 481 ii) Bhadra Advancing (P) Ltd v. ACIT (2008) 175 Taxmann 551 iii) CIT vs. Suresh Chand Bansal (2010) 329 ITR 330 iv) S.M.J Housing vs. CIT (2013) 357 ITR 698/38 Taxmann.com 203 8.1 He accordingly submitted that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act is leviable. Page 6 of 14 ITA 573 of 2023 Kishan Kumar Agarwal 9. The learned Counsel for the assessee without prejudice to the above submission referring to various decisions submitted that in view of the…

VINOD (RATAN) SUHALKA,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 241/JODH/2019[2007-08]Status: PendingITAT Jodhpur05 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…een conducted. However, in the above two cases, relied upon by the assessee, there was no search therefore the decisions have no application at all to the instant case. 3.CIT Vis Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC) 4 CIT VIs Suresh Chand Bansal (2010) 329 ITR 330 (Cal) In the instant case search has been conducted after 01.06.2007 therefore the provisions of Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) are applicable. Penalty is being upheld in light of the deeming provisions of Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c). However in the above. mentioned two cases, relied upon by the assessee, search was conducted before…

KRISHAN LAL MADHOK,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6422/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2007-08]

For Appellant: Shri Priyanshu Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rocktim Saikia, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…withdrawn some claim of depreciation penalty is not leviable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chand Bansal, (2010) 329 ITR 330 (Cal) held that where there was an offer of additional income in the revised return filed by the assessee and such offer is in consequence of a search action, then if the assessment order accepts the offer of the assessee, levy of penalty on such offer is not justified without detailed discussion of the documents and their explanation which compe…

SAI SAMARTH ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CC- 1 , THANE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 3718/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3718/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3720/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3721/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ M/S. Sai Samarth Enterprises Dcit-Central Circle-1, 107, Patel Building, Parel, Thane. Vs. Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abufs9008B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Suchek Anchaliya Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/03/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, (Jm): The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 29.03.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 132oSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ed a revised return and withdrawn some claim of depreciation penalty is not leviable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Suresh Chand Bansal [2010] 329 ITR 330 held that where there was an offer of additional income in the revised return filed by the assessee and such offer is in consequence of a search action, then if the assessment order accepts the offer of the assessee, levy of penalty on such offer is not justified without detailed discussion of the documents and their explanation which compelled t…

DEEPAK JATIA ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 940/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 940 To 943/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2013-14) बिधम/ Deepak Jatia Dcit-Central Circle-1(1) Room No.903, 9Th Floor, Old Marathon Innova, „A‟ Wing, Vs. 7Th Floor, Off. G. K. Marg, Cgo Bldg, Annexure, M.K. Lower Parel, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adxpj8701D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Narendra Singh Jang Pangi (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, (Jm): The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 47, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (AR)For Respondent: Shri Narendra Singh Jang Pangi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 27Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…withdrawn some claim of depreciation penalty is not leviable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chand Bansal, (2010) 329 ITR 330 (Cal) held that where there was an offer of additional income in the revised return filed by the assessee and such offer is in consequence of a search action, then if the assessment order accepts the offer of the assessee, levy of penalty on such offer is not justified without detailed discussion of the documents and their explanation which compe…

SANJEEV JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6886/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

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

…withdrawn some claim of depreciation penalty is not leviable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chand Bansal, (2010) 329 ITR 330 (Cal) held that where there was an offer of additional income in the revised return filed by the assessee and such offer is in consequence of a search action, then if the assessment order accepts the offer of the assessee, levy of penalty on such offer is not justified without detailed discussion of the documents and their explanation which compe…

SANJEEV JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6885/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

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

…withdrawn some claim of depreciation penalty is not leviable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chand Bansal, (2010) 329 ITR 330 (Cal) held that where there was an offer of additional income in the revised return filed by the assessee and such offer is in consequence of a search action, then if the assessment order accepts the offer of the assessee, levy of penalty on such offer is not justified without detailed discussion of the documents and their explanation which compe…

SANJEEV JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6884/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

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

…withdrawn some claim of depreciation penalty is not leviable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chand Bansal, (2010) 329 ITR 330 (Cal) held that where there was an offer of additional income in the revised return filed by the assessee and such offer is in consequence of a search action, then if the assessment order accepts the offer of the assessee, levy of penalty on such offer is not justified without detailed discussion of the documents and their explanation which compe…

SANJEEV J AIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6883/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

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

…withdrawn some claim of depreciation penalty is not leviable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chand Bansal, (2010) 329 ITR 330 (Cal) held that where there was an offer of additional income in the revised return filed by the assessee and such offer is in consequence of a search action, then if the assessment order accepts the offer of the assessee, levy of penalty on such offer is not justified without detailed discussion of the documents and their explanation which compe…

SANJEEV J AIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6882/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

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

…withdrawn some claim of depreciation penalty is not leviable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chand Bansal, (2010) 329 ITR 330 (Cal) held that where there was an offer of additional income in the revised return filed by the assessee and such offer is in consequence of a search action, then if the assessment order accepts the offer of the assessee, levy of penalty on such offer is not justified without detailed discussion of the documents and their explanation which compe…

RISHABH BUILDWELL P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6881/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

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

…withdrawn some claim of depreciation penalty is not leviable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chand Bansal, (2010) 329 ITR 330 (Cal) held that where there was an offer of additional income in the revised return filed by the assessee and such offer is in consequence of a search action, then if the assessment order accepts the offer of the assessee, levy of penalty on such offer is not justified without detailed discussion of the documents and their explanation which compe…

RISHABH BUILDWELL P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6880/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

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

…withdrawn some claim of depreciation penalty is not leviable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chand Bansal, (2010) 329 ITR 330 (Cal) held that where there was an offer of additional income in the revised return filed by the assessee and such offer is in consequence of a search action, then if the assessment order accepts the offer of the assessee, levy of penalty on such offer is not justified without detailed discussion of the documents and their explanation which compe…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI NEERAJ JINDAL

ITA/464/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…hdrawn some claim of depreciation penalty is not leviable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chand Bansal, (2010) 329 ITR 330 (Cal) held that where there was an offer of additional income in the revised return filed by the assessee and such offer is in consequence of a search action, then if the assessment order accepts the offer of the assessee, levy of penalty on such offer is not justified without detailed discussion of the documents and their explanation which…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI ANKUR AGGARWAL

ITA/465/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…hdrawn some claim of depreciation penalty is not leviable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chand Bansal, (2010) 329 ITR 330 (Cal) held that where there was an offer of additional income in the revised return filed by the assessee and such offer is in consequence of a search action, then if the assessment order accepts the offer of the assessee, levy of penalty on such offer is not justified without detailed discussion of the documents and their explanation which…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI ANKUR AGGARWAL

ITA/466/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…hdrawn some claim of depreciation penalty is not leviable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chand Bansal, (2010) 329 ITR 330 (Cal) held that where there was an offer of additional income in the revised return filed by the assessee and such offer is in consequence of a search action, then if the assessment order accepts the offer of the assessee, levy of penalty on such offer is not justified without detailed discussion of the documents and their explanation which…

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chand Bansal (329 ITR 330) — Cited in 20 Judgments | BharatTax