PCIT v. Neeraj Jindal

393 ITR 1High Court2017#627 most cited

What is PCIT v. Neeraj Jindal authority for?

If an assessment under Section 148/147 is accepted without modification or addition, or if an amount is surrendered in a return filed under Section 153A, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income can be imposed.

157

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. Neeraj Jindal · 393 ITR 1 · Section 271(1)(c) penalty · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · Section 153A assessment · surrender of income · Section 148 reassessment · assessment accepted without modification

Also reported as

79 Taxmann.com 96

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 147Section 132Section 274
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 90(3)section 65(b)section 276section 80hhc(3)section 65b(4)section 163section 153b(1)section 42azadi bachao andolanhouse property incomesection 115japenalty under section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing PCIT v. Neeraj Jindal

Tripat Kaur, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1833/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ch by the Ld. AO and that income disclosed by the assessee u/s 153A of the Act was higher than the income in the original return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act, then in view of the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in PCIT Vs Neeraj Jindal (2017) 393 ITR 1 (DEL) such disclosure of additional income will not automatically lead to the penalty. The next point urged on behalf of the assessee is that inasmuch as the notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271 of the Act has not specified as to under which limb of the Act, the penalty is proposed to be levied, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Karnata…

Tripat Kaur, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1832/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ch by the Ld. AO and that income disclosed by the assessee u/s 153A of the Act was higher than the income in the original return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act, then in view of the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in PCIT Vs Neeraj Jindal (2017) 393 ITR 1 (DEL) such disclosure of additional income will not automatically lead to the penalty. The next point urged on behalf of the assessee is that inasmuch as the notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271 of the Act has not specified as to under which limb of the Act, the penalty is proposed to be levied, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Karnata…

Tripat Kaur, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1831/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ch by the Ld. AO and that income disclosed by the assessee u/s 153A of the Act was higher than the income in the original return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act, then in view of the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in PCIT Vs Neeraj Jindal (2017) 393 ITR 1 (DEL) such disclosure of additional income will not automatically lead to the penalty. The next point urged on behalf of the assessee is that inasmuch as the notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271 of the Act has not specified as to under which limb of the Act, the penalty is proposed to be levied, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Karnata…

Tripat Kaur, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1830/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ch by the Ld. AO and that income disclosed by the assessee u/s 153A of the Act was higher than the income in the original return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act, then in view of the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in PCIT Vs Neeraj Jindal (2017) 393 ITR 1 (DEL) such disclosure of additional income will not automatically lead to the penalty. The next point urged on behalf of the assessee is that inasmuch as the notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271 of the Act has not specified as to under which limb of the Act, the penalty is proposed to be levied, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Karnata…

Tripat Kaur, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1829/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ch by the Ld. AO and that income disclosed by the assessee u/s 153A of the Act was higher than the income in the original return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act, then in view of the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in PCIT Vs Neeraj Jindal (2017) 393 ITR 1 (DEL) such disclosure of additional income will not automatically lead to the penalty. The next point urged on behalf of the assessee is that inasmuch as the notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271 of the Act has not specified as to under which limb of the Act, the penalty is proposed to be levied, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Karnata…

Anant Mate, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1674/PUN/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1674 To 1678/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2008-09 & 2010-11

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(5)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…ed CIT(Appeals) as incorrect………...” 7. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee thereafter, has explained the provisions of the Act and has relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Pr.CIT Vs. Neeraj Jindal reported in 393 ITR 1 (Delhi) and also placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in T Ashok Pai Vs. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC), CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT & Anr. (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC). The written submissions filed by the assessee are placed in Paper Book. 8. The lear…

Harveer Singh Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5472/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. K. N. Chary, Jm Ita No. 5472/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Harveer Singh Kalra, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, A-29, Friends Colony, Central Circle-15(Old)/14(New), New Delhi-110065 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afbpk6171Q Assessee By : Ms. Rano Jain, Devita Sharma, Advs. & Sh. Ashish Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Munish Kumar Gupta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.09.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxvi, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, Devita Sharma, Advs. &For Respondent: Sh. Munish Kumar Gupta, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132ASection 139Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…in assessee’s own case in ITA Nos. 6440 & 6441/Del/2016 for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2011- 2 Harveer Singh Kalra 12 wherein by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs Neeraj Jindal and Others (2017) 393 ITR 1, the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee (copy of the said order was furnished which is placed on record. 4. In his rival submissions, the ld. DR although supported the orders of the authorities below but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. 5. We have considered the submissions of both t…

Sh. Sanjay Dalmia, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result all the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3795/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

…ITA No. 3795 to 3801/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2012-13 Sanjay Dalmia, Vs DCIT INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―G‖: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3795 to 3801/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2012-13) Sanjay Dalmia, Vs. DCIT, 2nd Floor, Indraprakash Building, Central Circle-2, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi PAN:AADPD9438N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, Adv Revenue by: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR Date of Hearing 28/09/2017 Date of pronouncement 05/10/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHA…

Chaturbhuj T. Batra, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 18 & 19, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3453/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shailesh Parmar,Ld. ARFor Respondent: V.Vidhyadhar, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…hat the same stood against the assessee in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2014 1 SCC 674]. 13. The assessee has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in PCIT Vs. Neeraj Jindal [393 ITR 1]. However, we find the same distinguishable as that decision dealt with a situation where return filed u/s 153A has been accepted as such by the department without any making any further additions. Here we are dealing with a situation when the income has been assessed u/s 143(3) and the assessee has been saddled with further additions and the same…

Premkumar T. Batra, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Ci R 18 & 19, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3447/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shailesh Parmar,Ld. ARFor Respondent: V.Vidhyadhar, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…hat the same stood against the assessee in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2014 1 SCC 674]. 13. The assessee has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in PCIT Vs. Neeraj Jindal [393 ITR 1]. However, we find the same distinguishable as that decision dealt with a situation where return filed u/s 153A has been accepted as such by the department without any making any further additions. Here we are dealing with a situation when the income has been assessed u/s 143(3) and the assessee has been saddled with further additions and the same…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Harveer Singh Kalra, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 6441/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita Nos. 6438 & 6439/Del/2016 : Asstt. Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Acit, Vs Smt. Mehar Anand, Central Circle-14, A-29, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110065 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afepa9193B Ita Nos. 6440 & 6441/Del/2016 : Asstt. Years : 2009-10 & 2011-12 Acit, Vs Sh. Harveer Singh Kalra, Central Circle-14, A-29, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110065 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afbpk6171Q Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Chadha, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2017 Order These Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 07.09.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxvi, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…153A of the Act and merely by virtue of the fact that such return shows a higher income, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be automatically imposed. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Pr. CIT Vs Sh. Neeraj Jindal and Others (2017) 393 ITR 1 " ACIT Vs Bikramjit Singh Kalra in ITA Nos. 6436 & 6437/Del/2016 order dated 28.04.2017 " Prem Arora Vs DCIT (2012) 149 TTJ 590 (ITAT Del.) " Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs ACIT in ITA Nos. 4652 to 4655/Del/2011 order dated 25.07.2014 " ADIT Vs Nortel Networks Ltd. (2013) 144 ITD 639 (ITAT Del.) 11. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and c…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Mehar Anand, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 6438/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita Nos. 6438 & 6439/Del/2016 : Asstt. Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Acit, Vs Smt. Mehar Anand, Central Circle-14, A-29, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110065 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afepa9193B Ita Nos. 6440 & 6441/Del/2016 : Asstt. Years : 2009-10 & 2011-12 Acit, Vs Sh. Harveer Singh Kalra, Central Circle-14, A-29, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110065 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afbpk6171Q Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Chadha, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2017 Order These Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 07.09.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxvi, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…153A of the Act and merely by virtue of the fact that such return shows a higher income, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be automatically imposed. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Pr. CIT Vs Sh. Neeraj Jindal and Others (2017) 393 ITR 1 " ACIT Vs Bikramjit Singh Kalra in ITA Nos. 6436 & 6437/Del/2016 order dated 28.04.2017 " Prem Arora Vs DCIT (2012) 149 TTJ 590 (ITAT Del.) " Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs ACIT in ITA Nos. 4652 to 4655/Del/2011 order dated 25.07.2014 " ADIT Vs Nortel Networks Ltd. (2013) 144 ITD 639 (ITAT Del.) 11. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and c…

Radha Govind Lashkari, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, it cannot be said to be case of concealment of income and the penalty to this extent stand deleted

ITA 141/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S. R. Sharma (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri O.P. Bhateja (Addl.CIT)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…on 5A and doesn’t help the case of the assessee in the instant case. Recently, in the context of explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, similar contention came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Pr CIT vs Neeraj Jindal 393 ITR 1 and it was held that explanation 5 was specifically inserted to deal with such situations where higher income was disclosed in the return filed consequent to search operation, and the assessee but for such explanation, can contend that addition made to his income in the return filed after the search operations were only to buy peace and did not tan…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Surinder Kumar Gupta, Delhi

Accordingly the order of Ld. CIT(A) is upheld and the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 4397/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraay: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Garg, CA
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 264Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH - ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AY: 2006-07 ITO vs. Surinder Kumar Gupta Ward 35(4), 109, Shreshtha Vihar New Delhi. Delhi 110 092 PAN AAPPG1409E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR Respondent by : Shri Rohit Garg, CA Per ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, Accountant Member ORDER (A) This appeal has been filed by Revenue against order dated 16.5.2012 of Ld. CIT(A) – XXVII, New Delhi. The grounds of appeal are as under: 1. “The order of the CIT(A) is bad in law an…

Robin Bipin Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4270/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Mr. Robin Bipin Mehta Vs. Acit- Cc-20, Mumbai – 3, Deepak, 1St Floor, 401, 400 021 S.V.Road, Vile Parle (West) Mumbai – 400 056 Pan/Gir No. Aabpm8343D Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…153A of the Act the earlier return filed for the purpose of assessment which is pending would be treated as non est in law. ... ." 3 Mr. Robin Bipin Mehta 5. Reliance was also placed by learned AR on the decision of Delhi High Court in case of Neeraj Jindal 79 Taxmann.com 96. In this case, return U/S 139(1) was filed on 30.12.2005 declaring income of Rs.1,72,799/-. A search and seizure operation U/S 132(1) was carried out on 11/01/2007 wherein cash of Rs. 5,26,5301- and jewellery worth Rs. 17,85,785/- were found from the premises and lockers of the assessee. Notice u/s 153A was issued on 26.02.2008. Return u/s…

ACIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai vs. Mudra Lifestyle Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by revenue is dismissed

ITA 520/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Dharamesh Shah -ARFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 253Section 254(1)Section 271Section 271A

…015 dated 19.07. 2016. (vi) Meerat Singal Vs ACIT [161 TT 483], (vii) CIT Vs Radha Kishan Goel [278 ITR 454]Allahabad High Court, (viii) Sunil Kumar Bansal Vs DCIT [37 ITR (Trib) 576], (ix) Pramod Kr Jain Vs DCIT [149 TTJ 36 (URO)] (x) DCIT Vs Neeraj Jindal [293 CTR 298] (xi) Sri KiranShah versus ACIT in ITANo.5919/M/2011,08.01.2014, (xii) DCIT versus Purti Shankar Karkhara [ 23 ITR (T) 667], (xiii) Sh. Dinesh Khanna versus DCIT, ITA No. 4200-4205/M/2010 dated 29 July 2015, (xiv) CIT versus SSP Ltd [302 ITR 43](Punjab and Haryana) and (xv) PMS Diesels versus DCIT [260/Asr/ 2013 dated 31.12. 2016. 5. We have cons…

The Ballabgarh Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., Ballabgarh vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 437/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mathur, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(31)Section 271(1)(c)Section 72A

…made the concealment or furnished inaccurate particulars of his income”. We rely upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.C. Builders vs., ACIT 256 ITR 562 (SC) and Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs., Neeraj Jindal 393 ITR 1 (Del.). The assessee explained that claim of set-off of brought forward losses pertaining to earlier year of parent company were claimed as per the legal advice and that when assessee realized it is a mistake that depreciation is allowable only to the extent of 50% for use of the assets 12 ITA.No.437/Del./2014 The Ballabgarh Cooperative Milk Produ…