P.C. Joseph & Bros. Vs. CIT (Ker) 240 ITR 818, CIT v. Rakesh Suri (All)

67 DTR 430Reported decision#21222 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2022.

Judgments citing P.C. Joseph & Bros. Vs. CIT (Ker) 240 ITR 818, CIT v. Rakesh Suri (All)

Gaurishankar Chaudhary, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 6112/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Harmesh Lal
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…d to the undisclosed income, the disclosure made by the assessee cannot be considered to be voluntary. Further, in the cases of P.C. Joseph & Bros. Vs. CIT (Ker) 240 ITR 818, CIT vs. Rakesh Suri (All) 331 ITR 458 and CIT vs. Sushma Devi Agarwal (ITAT, Kol-TM) 67 DTR 430, it has been held that simply because the assessee agreed for addition of undisclosed income subsequent to detection thereof and filed return in response to notice u/s 148 offering the said amount as additional income, the assessee cannot escape levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). In the instant case, the said additional income on account of brokerage…

Gaurishankar Chaudhary, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 6110/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Harmesh Lal
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…d to the undisclosed income, the disclosure made by the assessee cannot be considered to be voluntary. Further, in the cases of P.C. Joseph & Bros. Vs. CIT (Ker) 240 ITR 818, CIT vs. Rakesh Suri (All) 331 ITR 458 and CIT vs. Sushma Devi Agarwal (ITAT, Kol-TM) 67 DTR 430, it has been held that simply because the assessee agreed for addition of undisclosed income subsequent to detection thereof and filed return in response to notice u/s 148 offering the said amount as additional income, the assessee cannot escape levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). In the instant case, the said additional income on account of brokerage…

Satish Saraf, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner Central Circle-4(3), Central Range-4, Mumbai

ITA 6567/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)

…assessee cannot be considered to be voluntary. Further, in the cases of P.C. Joseph & 12 I.T.A. No. 6567, 6605 & 6568/Mum/2017 Satish Saraf Bros. Vs. CIT (Ker) 240 ITR 818, CIT vs, Rakesh Suri (All) 331 ITR 458 and CIT vs. Sushma Devi Agarwal (ITAT, Kol-TM) 67 DTR 430, it has been held that simply because the assessee agreed for addition of undisclosed income subsequent to detection thereof and filed return in response to notice u/s. 148 offering the said amount as additional income, the assessee cannot escape levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). In the said cases cited, it can be observed that even wherein the asse…

Shri Ghanshyam Dungarbhai Sutariya, Surat vs. The ACIT, Circle-8, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2971/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ghanshyam Dungarbhai Sutaria, Vs. Acit, Circle-8, H.No. 1, 1St Floor, Sahaj Park Row Surat House, Hira Baug Circle, Vallabhacharya Road, Near Kailashdham Society, Ashwanikumar Road, Surat-395008 (Pan: Akkpp9318E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…/s. 148 of IT Act, 1961 offering additional income, assessee cannot escape penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant case laws are as following: > PC Joseph & Bros (Kerala) 240 ITR 818 > Rakesh Suri (All) 331 ITR 458 > Sushma Devi Agarwal (ITAT-Kol-TM) 67 DTR 430 5.2 Also Where the omission is deliberate, he cannot get rid of merely by filing a revised return. The revised return being filed only after the Department got information which was confronted to the assessee, penalty is attracted. Similar view has been upheld by several courts in the following judgments:- > Dayabhai Girdharbai Vs CIT (80m) 32 IT…