G.C. Aggarwal v. CIT

186 ITR 571Reported decision1990#13685 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing G.C. Aggarwal v. CIT

RAJAN SETIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/123/2022HC Punjab & Haryana29 Mar 2023

Bench: MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI,MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…ccordance with 132(4) read with explanation 5A() to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal, while dismissing the appeal of the appellant, had taken into consideration the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of G.C. Aggarwal Vs. CIT (1990) 186 ITR 571(S.C) and Allahabad High Court in Mool Chand (1978) Mahesh Chand vs. CIT 115 ITR 1 (All.) on the proposition that disclosure was made by the assessee in the revised return in response to 148(A) of the Act after search operation and in the revised returns, the assessee disclosed much larger incomes without justification than those disclose…

MR.BABU MATHEW,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 96/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…come out as a result of survey and thereafter filing return by the assessee to show the undisclosed income could not be said to be a voluntary act on the part of the assessee. In a number of decisions, including that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in 186 ITR 571, it has been held that revised return does not mitigate the default under section 271(1)(c). The assessee was under a statutory obligation to file the return of income within the time limit provided under section 139(1) providing therein the correct particulars of its income. It has failed to include in the return so filed the correct particulars…

MR.BABU MATHEW,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 95/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…come out as a result of survey and thereafter filing return by the assessee to show the undisclosed income could not be said to be a voluntary act on the part of the assessee. In a number of decisions, including that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in 186 ITR 571, it has been held that revised return does not mitigate the default under section 271(1)(c). The assessee was under a statutory obligation to file the return of income within the time limit provided under section 139(1) providing therein the correct particulars of its income. It has failed to include in the return so filed the correct particulars…

SMT. ARUNA CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No.3438/Del/2017 filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 3443/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 153A

…urn of income cannot be revised by way of filing a letter. It has also been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that the revision of return is not valid if the assessee is not able to establish inadvertent mistake or omission in the original return filed (G.C. Agarwal 186 ITR 571 SC). Relying upon this decision, Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Prempal Gandhi (335 ITR 23) held that are vision of income, which was not patent omission or mistake, was not acceptable. As a matter of fact the filing of letter offering agricultural income is nothing but the change of opinion on the part of the appellant to m…

SMT. ARUNA CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No.3438/Del/2017 filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 3442/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 153A

…urn of income cannot be revised by way of filing a letter. It has also been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that the revision of return is not valid if the assessee is not able to establish inadvertent mistake or omission in the original return filed (G.C. Agarwal 186 ITR 571 SC). Relying upon this decision, Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Prempal Gandhi (335 ITR 23) held that are vision of income, which was not patent omission or mistake, was not acceptable. As a matter of fact the filing of letter offering agricultural income is nothing but the change of opinion on the part of the appellant to m…

SMT. ARUNA CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No.3438/Del/2017 filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 3441/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 153A

…urn of income cannot be revised by way of filing a letter. It has also been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that the revision of return is not valid if the assessee is not able to establish inadvertent mistake or omission in the original return filed (G.C. Agarwal 186 ITR 571 SC). Relying upon this decision, Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Prempal Gandhi (335 ITR 23) held that are vision of income, which was not patent omission or mistake, was not acceptable. As a matter of fact the filing of letter offering agricultural income is nothing but the change of opinion on the part of the appellant to m…

GOPAL V. GORWANI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6627/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2006-07 Smt. Madu Gorwani, Asst Cit - 19(3), R.No.305, 3Rd Floor, Legal Heir Of Late Shri Gopal V. Gorwani, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. “Palatial”, 21St Road, Mumbai – 400 012 Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050 Pan: Aaypg4064C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri K. Gopal & Miss Neha Paranjpe, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P. Nagendra Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 03.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Miss Neha Paranjpe, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. Nagendra Kumar, D.R
Section 133Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2006-07 Smt. Madu Gorwani, Asst CIT - 19(3), R.No.305, 3rd Floor, Legal Heir of Late Shri Gopal V. Gorwani, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. “Palatial”, 21st Road, Mumbai – 400 012 Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050 PAN: AAYPG4064C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri K. Gopal & Miss Neha Paranjpe, A.R. Revenue by : Shri P. Nagendra Kumar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 03.05.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 06.05.2016 O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judici…

G.C. Aggarwal v. CIT (186 ITR 571) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax