S.M.J. Housing v. Commissioner of Income Tax

357 ITR 698High Court2013#5126 most cited

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.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

S.M.J. Housing v. CIT · section 271(1)(c) · penalty · revised return after search · acceptance by AO · offer of additional income · search and seizure

Also reported as

38 Taxmann.com 203

Sections most often in play

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 132

Issues it is cited on

section 271(c)section 276csection 138time barred assessmentsection 276bona fide mistakesection 271aaasection 153(a)penalty under section 271(1)(c)penalty u/s 271(1)(c)statement under section 132(4)section 153b

Judgments citing S.M.J. Housing v. Commissioner of Income Tax

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-19 vs. Shri Neeraj Jindal

ITA/464/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ee, 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 h…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-19 vs. Shri Ankur Aggarwal

ITA/465/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ee, 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 h…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-19 vs. Shri Ankur Aggarwal

ITA/466/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ee, 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 h…

S.M.J. Housing v. Commissioner of Income Tax (357 ITR 698) — Cited in 23 Judgments | BharatTax