K.P.Madhusudhanan v. CIT

251 ITR 99Supreme Court of India2001#468 most cited

What is K.P.Madhusudhanan v. CIT authority for?

Voluntary disclosures or explanations offered by an assessee do not automatically absolve them from penalty under section 271(1)(c) if the explanation is not substantiated by credible evidence.

199

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

K.P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT · section 271(1)(c) · penalty · furnishing inaccurate particulars · concealment of income · voluntary disclosure · unsubstantiated explanation · credible evidence · section 274

Also reported as

118 Taxmann 324169 CTR 489

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 274Section 139Section 149Section 153A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomepenalty u/s 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particularsconcealment of incomesection 274section 271(1)levy of penaltysection 271section 271(1)(c)section 27commissioner (appeals)

Judgments citing K.P.Madhusudhanan v. CIT

Anuradha Khanna, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Meerut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 513/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Kumar Jiwani, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘C/SMC’, NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:- 514/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ms. Anisha Khanna, ITO, 65-A, Saket, Vs. Ward 1(1), Meerut. Meerut. PAN No.-BFXPK9302N APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No:- 513/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt. Anuradha Khanna, ITO, 65-A, Saket, Vs. Ward 1(1), Meerut. Meerut. PAN No.-AEZPK2688E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Sh. Rajkumar, CA Sh. P.S. kashyep, CA Sh. Sumit Goel, CA Revenue by : Sh. Vijay Kumar Jiwani, Sr. DR Date of Hearing :…

Shree Tirupati Geenfield Developers, Thane vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 3, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 586/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Shree Tirupati Greenfield Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Developers, Tax, Central Circle – 3, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Devanchand Hansraj Compound, Kolshet Road Road No.16Z, Wagle Estate Dhokali, Thane (W)-400607 Thane (W) Pan/Gir No. Abdfs2863H Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM Shree Tirupati Greenfield Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Developers, Tax, Central Circle – 3, 6th Floor, Ashar IT Park Devanchand Hansraj Compound, Kolshet Road Road No.16Z, Wagle Estate Dhokali, Thane (W)-400607 Thane (W) PAN/GIR No. ABDFS2863H Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri Chetan Karia & Shri Tejas Parekh Revenue by Shri Ashish Kumar Date of Hearing 25/07/2018 Date of Pronouncement 06/08/2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the o…

Tanna Financial Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 206/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…s specified that the Assessee has concealed particulars of income?” 8. As per learned AR, in the case of Baisetty Revathi before the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, the department had relied on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of K P Madhusudhan, 251 ITR 99 and the same was distinguished and penalty was deleted following ratio laid down in case of Manjunatha. Copy of the judgment is at page 46 to 56 of the paper book and relevant part is at page 54. It reads as follows: "Smt. Kiranmayee, learned counsel, placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.P. MADHUSUDHAN'AN V/s. COMMISSIONER OF…

Quantum Coders Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5766/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 5766/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Quantum Coders Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 501-502, Plot No. 1, Dda Ward-14(4), Building, Distt. Centre, Janak New Delhi Puri, New Delhi-110058 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacq1197M Assessee By : Ms. Devina Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.06.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.08.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-7, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…. Vs CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC) " CIT Vs Gates Foam & Rubber Co. 91 ITR 467 (Ker.) " CIT Vs India Seafood 105 ITR 708 (Ker.) " Steel Ingots Ltd. Vs CIT 296 ITR 228 (MP) " CIT Vs Escorts Finance Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 44 (Del.) " K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs CIT (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC) 8. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271 r.w.s. 274 of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income which is evident from para 3.2 at page no. 2 of th…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Phi Seeds (P) Ltd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 4366/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2007-08
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…mens rea is not essential - Explanation appended to S. 271(1)(c) indicates element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing the return. 3. K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/[2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC)/[2001] 169 CTR 489 (SC)] Where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) is a part of section 271. When AO issues to an assessee a notice under section 271, he makes the assessee aware that the provisions thereof are to be used against him. These provisions include the Explanation. By reason of the Explanation where…

Suresh Jindal, Karnal vs. ITO, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1664/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. K. Tewari, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 SURESH JINDAL, VS. ITO, WARD-1 PROP. SWASTIK IMPEX, KARNAL TIMBER MARKET, KARNAL (PAN: ALDPK7993G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. K. Tewari, Sr. DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM The Assessee has filed this Appeal against the Order dated 03.03.2014 of the Ld. CIT(A), Karnal relating to assessment year 2007-08 on the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the orde…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Phi Seeds Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 6645/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2006-07
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…mens rea is not essential - Explanation appended to S. 271(1)(c) indicates element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing the return. 3. K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/[2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC)/[2001] 169 CTR 489 (SC)] Where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) is a part of section 271. When AO issues to an assessee a notice under section 271, he makes the assessee aware that the provisions thereof are to be used against him. These provisions include the Explanation. By reason of the Explanation where…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Phi Seeds Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 6622/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2004-05
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…mens rea is not essential - Explanation appended to S. 271(1)(c) indicates element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing the return. 3. K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/[2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC)/[2001] 169 CTR 489 (SC)] Where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) is a part of section 271. When AO issues to an assessee a notice under section 271, he makes the assessee aware that the provisions thereof are to be used against him. These provisions include the Explanation. By reason of the Explanation where…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) vs. M/S Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt Ltd

ITA/502/2017HC Karnataka21 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10BSection 260

…na fide. Therefore, the Explanation (1) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not attracted and, therefore, provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not applicable as held by the Hon’ble apex court in the case of K.P.Madhusudhanan v. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC) and also in the case of T.Ashok Pai v. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC), vide para 18 held as follows (page 18): “Even if the explanation are taken recourse to, a finding has to be arrived at having regard to clause (A) of Explanation 1 that the Assessing Officer is required to arrive at a finding that the explanation offered by an assesse…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) vs. M/S Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt Ltd

ITA/503/2017HC Karnataka21 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10BSection 260

…na fide. Therefore, the Explanation (1) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not attracted and, therefore, provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not applicable as held by the Hon’ble apex court in the case of K.P.Madhusudhanan v. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC) and also in the case of T.Ashok Pai v. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC), vide para 18 held as follows (page 18): “Even if the explanation are taken recourse to, a finding has to be arrived at having regard to clause (A) of Explanation 1 that the Assessing Officer is required to arrive at a finding that the explanation offered by an assesse…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) vs. M/S Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt Ltd

ITA/504/2017HC Karnataka21 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10BSection 260

…na fide. Therefore, the Explanation (1) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not attracted and, therefore, provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not applicable as held by the Hon’ble apex court in the case of K.P.Madhusudhanan v. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC) and also in the case of T.Ashok Pai v. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC), vide para 18 held as follows (page 18): “Even if the explanation are taken recourse to, a finding has to be arrived at having regard to clause (A) of Explanation 1 that the Assessing Officer is required to arrive at a finding that the explanation offered by an assesse…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt Ltd

ITA/506/2017HC Karnataka21 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10BSection 260

…na fide. Therefore, the Explanation (1) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not attracted and, therefore, provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not applicable as held by the Hon’ble apex court in the case of K.P.Madhusudhanan v. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC) and also in the case of T.Ashok Pai v. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC), vide para 18 held as follows (page 18): “Even if the explanation are taken recourse to, a finding has to be arrived at having regard to clause (A) of Explanation 1 that the Assessing Officer is required to arrive at a finding that the explanation offered by an assesse…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) vs. M/S Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt Ltd

ITA/500/2017HC Karnataka21 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10BSection 260

…na fide. Therefore, the Explanation (1) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not attracted and, therefore, provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not applicable as held by the Hon’ble apex court in the case of K.P.Madhusudhanan v. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC) and also in the case of T.Ashok Pai v. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC), vide para 18 held as follows (page 18): “Even if the explanation are taken recourse to, a finding has to be arrived at having regard to clause (A) of Explanation 1 that the Assessing Officer is required to arrive at a finding that the explanation offered by an assesse…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) vs. M/S Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt Ltd

ITA/501/2017HC Karnataka21 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10BSection 260

…na fide. Therefore, the Explanation (1) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not attracted and, therefore, provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not applicable as held by the Hon’ble apex court in the case of K.P.Madhusudhanan v. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC) and also in the case of T.Ashok Pai v. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC), vide para 18 held as follows (page 18): “Even if the explanation are taken recourse to, a finding has to be arrived at having regard to clause (A) of Explanation 1 that the Assessing Officer is required to arrive at a finding that the explanation offered by an assesse…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) vs. M/S Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt Ltd

ITA/505/2017HC Karnataka21 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10BSection 260

…na fide. Therefore, the Explanation (1) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not attracted and, therefore, provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not applicable as held by the Hon’ble apex court in the case of K.P.Madhusudhanan v. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC) and also in the case of T.Ashok Pai v. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC), vide para 18 held as follows (page 18): “Even if the explanation are taken recourse to, a finding has to be arrived at having regard to clause (A) of Explanation 1 that the Assessing Officer is required to arrive at a finding that the explanation offered by an assesse…

DCIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Infinite Computer Solution (I) Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7066/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, M/S Infinite Computer Circle-5(2)(1), Solutions (I) Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.571, 303, Lotus House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 33A, New Marine Lines, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaaci5145D C. O. No. 67/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7066/Mum/2016) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Infinite Computer Dcit, Solutions (I) Ltd. Circle-5(2)(1), बनाम/ 303, Lotus House, R. No.571, Vs. 33A, New Marine Lines, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaaci5145D

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 35D

…ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd 322 ITR 158 (SC). The AO, after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs KP Madhusudan reported in 251 ITR 99 (SC) observed that the assessee has filed incorrect claim in the return of income in respect of deductions claimed towards IPO expenses u/s 35D which warrants levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the penalty order, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). Before CIT(A), assessee submitted that the AO was erred in levying penal…

Shanti Kutir Chs Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5280/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5280/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) बिाम/ Shanti Kutir Chs Ltd. Ito 19(1)(4) 10T H Road, Santacruz(E), Mumbai Mumbai 400055 V. स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaaas6226M (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri. V. Justin ,DR
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…subtiate which is on the assesses, seizes penalty, represents trite law, expounded by the apex court decades { refer; CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal /2009J ITR 317(SC); UOI v/s. Dharmendra Textile Processors 12008] 306 ITR 277(SC); K.P. Madhusudanan us. CIT 12001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam and Bros. v/s. CIT(1999) 236 ITR 977 (SC); Addl CIT v/s. Jeevan Lal Shah [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC), to cite some, and which is completely absent in the instant case, the Id. CIT (A), Whose findings are comprehensive, has correctly appreciated both, the facts as well as the law in the matter, so that there has been no omiss…

The ITO, Ward-2(3)(5), Surat vs. M/S. Global Syntax, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2936/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C .M. Garg & Shri O. P. Meena

Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…ions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that in the assessment order, the AO has relied on the decision of Dharmendra Textile Processors & Ors. (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC). Addl. CIT vs. Jeevanlal Shah 205 ITR 244 (SC) and K P Madhusudan vs. CIT 251 ITR 99 (SC) and levied penalty of Rs.14,58,400/- which deleted by the CIT(A). The AO has estimated the income on pure guess work. The similar issue had come before the Hon’ble M.P.High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shivnarayan Jamnalal, (1998) 232 ITR M/s.Global Syntax in ITA No.2936/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2010-11 Page 4 of 5 311(MP)/1996 89 Taxman 420 (MKP)…

The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3673/MUM/2016[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीऱसं./Ita No.3673/Mumbai/2016 (निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year: 1994-95) M/S. The Bombay Dyeing Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Mumbai & Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Mumbai Neville House, J.N. Heredia Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001. स्थायीऱेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaact 2328 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shriyogesh A. Thar & Shri Chaitanya Joshi Respondent By :Shri Abhijeet Patankar, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19/02/2018 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am:

For Appellant: ShriYogesh A. Thar &For Respondent: Shri Abhijeet Patankar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 37Section 80H

…by the AO which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not repeated for the sake of brevity. In addition to this, the ld. DR for the revenue has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs. CIT[2001] 251 ITR 99(SC). 8. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, we find that the notice has been issued for „having concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income‟, and irrelevant portion has not been strike off. We note that there is no specific charge o…

Asst CIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Infinite Computer Solutions (I) Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1109/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 35D

…e Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd 322 ITR 158 (SC). The AO, after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs KP Madhusudan reported in 251 ITR 99 (SC) observed that the assessee has filed incorrect claim in the return of income in respect of deductions claimed towards IPO expenses u/s 35D which warrants levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the penalty order, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). Before CIT(A), assessee submitted that the AO was erred in levying p…