Prem Pal Gandhi v. CIT

335 ITR 23High Court2011#9694 most cited

What is Prem Pal Gandhi v. CIT authority for?

A revised income tax return offering additional income is not acceptable if the assessee cannot establish an inadvertent mistake or omission in the original return, and instead appears to be a change of opinion to correct a deliberate omission.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Also referred to as

Prem Pal Gandhi v. CIT · revised return · inadvertent mistake · omission · change of opinion · deliberate suppression · agricultural income · undisclosed income

Judgments citing Prem Pal Gandhi v. CIT

Kamala Shiva Kumar, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Kamala Shiva Kumar, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Secunderabad. Ward – 10(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Apkpk 1463 N (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/05/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Ay 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Cit(A) - 6, Hyderabad’S Order, Dated 12/01/2018 Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ; In Short “The Act”.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…is not voluntary and bona fide and in support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions : 7 I.T.A. No. 535/Hyd/2019 Kamala Shiva Kumar, Hyd. (i) Decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Prempal Gandhi v. CIT [2011] 335 ITR 23/[2009] 185 Taxman 64. (ii) Decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Bansal Abhushan Bhandar [IT Reference Nos. 272 to 276 of 1995, dated 6-11-2006]. (iii) Decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Rajesh Chawla v. CIT [2006] 154 Taxman 364. (iv) Unreported decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High…

Sh. Satpal Gosain, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 132/CHANDI/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Nov 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Kehlon, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…) was not considered by the revenue and therefore the order of Hon'ble ITAT confirming the penalty proceedings was set-aside whereas the facts in the instant case are distinguishable as discussed earlier. It has been held in the case of Prem Pal Gandhi vs CIT 335 ITR 23 (2009) by the Jurisdictional High court that where the assessee has filed a revised return surrendering the additional income only on coming to know the detection of concealment by the department and it is not a case of bonafide voluntary disclosure, penalty u/s 271(l)(c) is leviable. Reliance is also placed on the case of Mahavir metal works vs C…

Sh. Charanjit Singh Atwal, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ludhiana

In the result, the penalty of the assessee is hereby allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 66/CHANDI/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2007-08 Sh. Charanjit Singh Atwal, Vs. The Ito, Ward 6(1), 484-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana Ludhiana

For Appellant: Sh. J.S. BhasinFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…availability of the information about the transfer of land, with the department. ii) That the gain declared was not voluntary by the appellant and the return was revised only when the department initiated enquiries. That in the case of Prempal Gandhi Vs. CIT 335 ITR 23 (2009) (P&H), it was held that when the return is revised on coming to know about the detection of concealment by department, it is not a case of bonafide voluntary disclosure. iii) That there being no bonafide cause for not declaring the capital gain the original return, the levy of penalty was confirmed. 10. Now the assessee has come in appeal…

ITO, Ludhiana vs. Sh. Charanjit Singh Atwal, Ludhiana

In the result, the penalty of the assessee is hereby allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 106/CHANDI/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2007-08 Sh. Charanjit Singh Atwal, Vs. The Ito, Ward 6(1), 484-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana Ludhiana

For Appellant: Sh. J.S. BhasinFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…availability of the information about the transfer of land, with the department. ii) That the gain declared was not voluntary by the appellant and the return was revised only when the department initiated enquiries. That in the case of Prempal Gandhi Vs. CIT 335 ITR 23 (2009) (P&H), it was held that when the return is revised on coming to know about the detection of concealment by department, it is not a case of bonafide voluntary disclosure. iii) That there being no bonafide cause for not declaring the capital gain the original return, the levy of penalty was confirmed. 10. Now the assessee has come in appeal…

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

…vision 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 make good of the deliberate suppression of the material facts not shown earlier and hence it is clear that the appe…

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

…vision 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 make good of the deliberate suppression of the material facts not shown earlier and hence it is clear that the appe…

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

…vision 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 make good of the deliberate suppression of the material facts not shown earlier and hence it is clear that the appe…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai vs. Bharat Ruia HUF, Mumbai

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 950/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja () I.T.A. No. 949 To 952 /Mum/2014 (Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) Acit, Cent.Cir.47, Mumbai Bharat Ruia, Huf Prop P.R. International, Ruia House, 19, Bhausaheb Hire Marg, Malbar Hill, Mumbai-6 Pan : Aachb3596E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271

…covered during the course of search. If there was no search action in the use of the appellant he would not have filed the return of income admitting the undisclosed income. The Hon1ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Prem Pal Gandhi Vs. CIT (2001) 335 ITR 23 (P&H) upheld that where revised return, showing higher income is filed after detection of concealed income by the Department, imposition of penalty would be justified. Concealment takes place on the date when return s filed without disclosing the particulars of income of that year as 18 I.T.A. No.949 to 952/Mum/2014 I.T.A Nos.750 to 753/Mum/2014…

Bharat R. Ruia(HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 752/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja () I.T.A. No. 949 To 952 /Mum/2014 (Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) Acit, Cent.Cir.47, Mumbai Bharat Ruia, Huf Prop P.R. International, Ruia House, 19, Bhausaheb Hire Marg, Malbar Hill, Mumbai-6 Pan : Aachb3596E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271

…covered during the course of search. If there was no search action in the use of the appellant he would not have filed the return of income admitting the undisclosed income. The Hon1ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Prem Pal Gandhi Vs. CIT (2001) 335 ITR 23 (P&H) upheld that where revised return, showing higher income is filed after detection of concealed income by the Department, imposition of penalty would be justified. Concealment takes place on the date when return s filed without disclosing the particulars of income of that year as 18 I.T.A. No.949 to 952/Mum/2014 I.T.A Nos.750 to 753/Mum/2014…

ITO 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Diwa Exports, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6141/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Amrita SinghFor Respondent: Shri. Ketan L. Vajani
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty of Rs. 38,62,500/- imposed for the AY 2010-11 and Rs. 43,26,000/- for the AY 2011-12. 3. The Ld. DR relied on the assessment order passed by the AO. She also relied on the decision in the case of Prem Pal Gandhi vs. CIT (2011) 335 ITR 23 (P&H). 4. The ld. Counsel of the assessee referred to the decision in the case of Sudharshan Silk & Sarees vs. CIT (2008) 300 ITR 205 (SC); Careers Education and Infotech (P) Ltd. ( supra) and Suresh Chandra Mittal (supra). He further stated that the assessee with a desire to avoid litigation and to buy peace voluntarily filed a revised return o…

ITO 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Diwa Exports, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6140/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Amrita SinghFor Respondent: Shri. Ketan L. Vajani
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty of Rs. 38,62,500/- imposed for the AY 2010-11 and Rs. 43,26,000/- for the AY 2011-12. 3. The Ld. DR relied on the assessment order passed by the AO. She also relied on the decision in the case of Prem Pal Gandhi vs. CIT (2011) 335 ITR 23 (P&H). 4. The ld. Counsel of the assessee referred to the decision in the case of Sudharshan Silk & Sarees vs. CIT (2008) 300 ITR 205 (SC); Careers Education and Infotech (P) Ltd. ( supra) and Suresh Chandra Mittal (supra). He further stated that the assessee with a desire to avoid litigation and to buy peace voluntarily filed a revised return o…

Prem Pal Gandhi v. CIT (335 ITR 23) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax