K.P.Madhusudhanan v. CIT

DCIT(It)-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Venu Raman Kumar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit (It) – 3(3)(2) Vs. Shri Venu Raman 16Th Floor, Room No. Kumar, 1634, Air India Bldg, Flat No. 2, Hermes Nariman Point, House-Iii, Mumbai – 400020. Worli Sea Face, Mumbai – 400025. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abapk9122E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Achal Sharma. Cit. Dr Respondent By : Shri.Vijay Mehta.Ar Date Of Hearing 01.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 13.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 57, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

…n addition to the above statutory position, the legal principles governing the penalty w/s271(1)(c) emerge from some of the landmark decisions of the judicial authorities such as the following: Venu Raman Kumar, Mumbai a. In the case of K.P.Madhusudan Vs. CIT 251 ITR 99 (SC) the Apex Court has held that it is for the assessee to prove that his failure to return the correct income was not due to fraud or negligence. If he fails to do so, he shall be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof and consequently liable for penalty provided by the section. b) Fur…