What is S.M.J. Housing v. Commissioner of Income Tax authority for?

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be automatically levied when the assessee files a revised return after a search and the Assessing Officer accepts it. The department must demonstrate that the offer of additional income was compelled by detailed discussion of documents and their explanation.

How many judgments cite S.M.J. Housing v. Commissioner of Income Tax?

23 judgments on BharatTax cite S.M.J. Housing v. Commissioner of Income Tax (357 ITR 698), spanning 2017 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does S.M.J. Housing v. Commissioner of Income Tax come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 139, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 153A, Section 271(1)(c).

S.M.J. Housing v. Commissioner of Income Tax (357 ITR 698)

SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 192/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 192/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2011-12 Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani P.No.2, Shiv Shankar Colony Janta Colony, Jaipur – 302 004 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward -6(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ANYPB 6571 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे/Assesseeby : Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru" V.C.) राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Sin

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru” V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…axman 244/25 taxmann.com 214 (SC) (para 6.3), CIT v. Kanhaiyalal 2008] 299 ITR 19 (Raj.) (para 6.3), CIT v. Radha Kishan Goel [20051 278 ITR 454 (All) (para 6.3), CIT v. Abdul Rashi 201.31 40 taxmann.com 244 (Chattisgarh) (para 6.3), SMJ. Housing v. CI7[2013] 357 ITR 698/38 tasmann.com 203 (Mad) (para 6.3), CIT Vegetable Products Lad [1973] 88 ITR 192 (SC) (para 6.3) and Shourya Towers (P) Ladv. Dy CIT[20131 359 ITR 523/213 Taxman 20 (Mag 30 taxmann.com.10 (Delhi) (para 7). Saurabh M. Soparkar, Sr. Counsel and Mrs. Swati Soparkar, Adv for the Appellant P.G. Desai and Sudhir M. Mehta, Advs., for the Respondent The…

SURESH CHAND BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16 , DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3666/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3665/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16) Amit Bansal ACIT C/o M/s Ganesh Lal Central Circle-16 Shri Chand, Janta Bazzar Vs. Delhi Jind, SCH No.6, Jind Haryana-126102 PAN-AGBPB 2366DJ (Appellant) (Respondent) Suresh Chand Bansal ACIT C/o M/s Ganesh Lal Central Circle-16 Shri Chand, Janta Bazzar Vs. Delhi Jind, SCH No.6, Jind Haryana-126102 PAN-AANPC 3204B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Respondent by Shri Om Parkash, S…

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3665/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3665/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16) Amit Bansal ACIT C/o M/s Ganesh Lal Central Circle-16 Shri Chand, Janta Bazzar Vs. Delhi Jind, SCH No.6, Jind Haryana-126102 PAN-AGBPB 2366DJ (Appellant) (Respondent) Suresh Chand Bansal ACIT C/o M/s Ganesh Lal Central Circle-16 Shri Chand, Janta Bazzar Vs. Delhi Jind, SCH No.6, Jind Haryana-126102 PAN-AANPC 3204B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Respondent by Shri Om Parkash, S…

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3664/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3665/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16) Amit Bansal ACIT C/o M/s Ganesh Lal Central Circle-16 Shri Chand, Janta Bazzar Vs. Delhi Jind, SCH No.6, Jind Haryana-126102 PAN-AGBPB 2366DJ (Appellant) (Respondent) Suresh Chand Bansal ACIT C/o M/s Ganesh Lal Central Circle-16 Shri Chand, Janta Bazzar Vs. Delhi Jind, SCH No.6, Jind Haryana-126102 PAN-AANPC 3204B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Respondent by Shri Om Parkash, S…

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISKAHAPATNAM vs. SRI VIJAYA VISAKHA MILK PRODUCERS COMPANY LIMITED,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed for the A

ITA 239/VIZ/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.239/Viz/2020 & 237/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 &2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Income Tax Producers Company Limited Central Circle-2 Visakha Diary, Bhpv Post Visakhapatnam Nh-5, Nathayyapalem Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aajcs7398P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणमपीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAMBENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी, न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.239/Viz/2020 & 237/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 &2013-14) Assistant Commissioner of Vs. M/s Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Income Tax Producers Company Limited Central Circle-2 Visakha Diary, BHPV Post Visakhapatnam NH-5, Nathayyapalem Visakhapatnam [PAN :AAJCS7398P] (अपीलार्थी…

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 253/AHD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, अहमदाबादनयायपीी IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’B’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Sr.No. ITA No. Name of Appellant Name of Respondent Year Dharmenbhai Mahendrabhai Sutaria, 2009-10 16-B, Jadav Chambers, ITA No.251- A.C.I.T, & Ashram Road, 1-2. 252/Ahd/2022 Central Circle-(1)(2), 2011-12 Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. PAN: AFUPS6552A Dharmenbhai Mahendrabhai Sutaria- HUF, ITA 23-B, Jadav Chambers, A.C.I.T, 3. No.253/Ahd/2022 2011-12 Ashram Road, Central Circle-(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380009. PAN: AAFHD1653K Sa…

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 252/AHD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, अहमदाबादनयायपीी IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’B’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Sr.No. ITA No. Name of Appellant Name of Respondent Year Dharmenbhai Mahendrabhai Sutaria, 2009-10 16-B, Jadav Chambers, ITA No.251- A.C.I.T, & Ashram Road, 1-2. 252/Ahd/2022 Central Circle-(1)(2), 2011-12 Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. PAN: AFUPS6552A Dharmenbhai Mahendrabhai Sutaria- HUF, ITA 23-B, Jadav Chambers, A.C.I.T, 3. No.253/Ahd/2022 2011-12 Ashram Road, Central Circle-(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380009. PAN: AAFHD1653K Sa…

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 251/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, अहमदाबादनयायपीी IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’B’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Sr.No. ITA No. Name of Appellant Name of Respondent Year Dharmenbhai Mahendrabhai Sutaria, 2009-10 16-B, Jadav Chambers, ITA No.251- A.C.I.T, & Ashram Road, 1-2. 252/Ahd/2022 Central Circle-(1)(2), 2011-12 Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. PAN: AFUPS6552A Dharmenbhai Mahendrabhai Sutaria- HUF, ITA 23-B, Jadav Chambers, A.C.I.T, 3. No.253/Ahd/2022 2011-12 Ashram Road, Central Circle-(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380009. PAN: AAFHD1653K Sa…

KISHAN KUMAR AGARWAL,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 573/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.573/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Kishan Kumar Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Agarwal Central Circle 2(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Ablpa3923C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/01/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2.12.2022 Of The Learned Cit(A)-12, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.17,05,680/- Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…d a higher income, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot automatically be imposed: i) CIT v. Suraj Bhan (2007) 294 ITR 481 ii) Bhadra Advancing (P) Ltd v. ACIT (2008) 175 Taxmann 551 iii) CIT vs. Suresh Chand Bansal (2010) 329 ITR 330 iv) S.M.J Housing vs. CIT (2013) 357 ITR 698/38 Taxmann.com 203 8.1 He accordingly submitted that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act is leviable. Page 6 of 14 ITA 573 of 2023 Kishan Kumar Agarwal 9. The learned Counsel for the assessee without prejudice to the above submission referring to various decisions submitted that in view of the Explanation 5A to section 271(1) which is a…

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3), , PUNE vs. M/S RAVIRAJ VENTURES, PUNE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 667/PUN/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteincome Tax Officer, Vs M/S.Raviraj Ventures, Ward-6(3), Pune. 1 To 5, Millenium Star, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aagfr 3176 G Appellant/Revenue Respondent/Assessee Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.G.Jasnani, Jt.Cit Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement. : 15/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Pune-11, Dated 30.06.2022 Emanating From The Order Of The Acit, Dated 30.11.2018 Under Section 271(1)(C)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Cit(A) Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Passing The Order. 2. The Cit (A) Erred In Law As Well As On Facts By Deleting The Penalty U/S 271(L)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Of Rs.1,59,55,025/- Levied By The Ao Towards Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income For Not Following Recognization Of Revenue As Per As-9, As Raviraj Ventures [R]

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.G.Jasnani, Jt.CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCHES :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Income Tax Officer, Vs M/s.Raviraj Ventures, Ward-6(3), Pune. 1 to 5, Millenium Star, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. PAN: AAGFR 3176 G Appellant/Revenue Respondent/Assessee Assessee by : Shri Rajiv Thakkar, AR Revenue by : Shri M.G.Jasnani, Jt.CIT Date of hearing : 16/02/2023 Date of pronouncement. : 15/05/2023 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Pun…

KRISHAN LAL MADHOK,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6422/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2007-08]

For Appellant: Shri Priyanshu Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rocktim Saikia, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…sessee, levy of penalty on such offer is not justified without detailed discussion of the documents and their explanation which compelled the offer of additional income. The Madras High Court in the case of S.M.J. Housing v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2013) 357 ITR 698 held that where after a search was conducted, the assessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted such return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified. From the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed revised returns after search has been conducted, and such revised return has b…

SAI SAMARTH ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CC- 1 , THANE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 3718/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3718/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3720/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3721/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ M/S. Sai Samarth Enterprises Dcit-Central Circle-1, 107, Patel Building, Parel, Thane. Vs. Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abufs9008B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Suchek Anchaliya Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/03/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, (Jm): The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 29.03.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. AR)

Section 132Section 132oSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…epts the offer of the assessee, levy of penalty on such offer is not justified without detailed discussion of the documents and their explanation which compelled the offer of additional income. The Madras High Court in the case of S.M.J. Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38 taxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the assessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted such return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified. From the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed revised returns after search has been conducted, and such r…

DEEPAK JATIA ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 940/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 940 To 943/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2013-14) बिधम/ Deepak Jatia Dcit-Central Circle-1(1) Room No.903, 9Th Floor, Old Marathon Innova, „A‟ Wing, Vs. 7Th Floor, Off. G. K. Marg, Cgo Bldg, Annexure, M.K. Lower Parel, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adxpj8701D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Narendra Singh Jang Pangi (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, (Jm): The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 47, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (AR)For Respondent: Shri Narendra Singh Jang Pangi

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 27Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…without detailed discussion of the documents and their explanation which compelled the offer of additional income. The Madras High Court in the case of S.M.J. ITA. Nos/ 940 to 943/M/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 to 2013-14 Housing v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2013) 357 ITR 698 held that where after a search was conducted, the assessee filed the return of his ITA Nos. 6880 income and the Department had accepted such return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified. From the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed revised returns after search has been conducted, and such revise…