Santhosa Nadar v. First Addl. ITO

46 ITR 411High Court1962#11671 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 28(1)books or books of accountsection 2(12a)penalty under section 271bdeletion of penaltysection 44aasection 18section 271bsection 44asection 271apenalty u/s 271(1)(c)section 44ab

Judgments citing Santhosa Nadar v. First Addl. ITO

Uma Mandal, Jaipur (Rajasthan) vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

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

ITA 281/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 280 & 281/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 Uma Mandal 754, Lodho Ka Maohalla M. D. Road, Ward No. 34, Jaipur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: APSPM 2419 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 271ASection 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…ose provisions. So interpreted, I would not, in my opinion, be right in placing on section 28(1)(b) the construction for which the learned Government Pleader contends." (p. 133) 12. The Madras High Court in the case S. Santhosa Nadar v. First Addl. ITO [1962] 46 ITR 411 has gone to the extent that a voluntary return filed after the period of four years from the close of the assessment year is not a valid return and such a case should be regarded as if no return has been filed at all and it cannot be said in such a case that there has been a concealment of the particulars of income or deliberate furnishing of inac…

Uma Mandal, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 280/JPR/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Sept 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 280 & 281/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 Uma Mandal 754, Lodho Ka Maohalla M. D. Road, Ward No. 34, Jaipur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: APSPM 2419 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 271ASection 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…ose provisions. So interpreted, I would not, in my opinion, be right in placing on section 28(1)(b) the construction for which the learned Government Pleader contends." (p. 133) 12. The Madras High Court in the case S. Santhosa Nadar v. First Addl. ITO [1962] 46 ITR 411 has gone to the extent that a voluntary return filed after the period of four years from the close of the assessment year is not a valid return and such a case should be regarded as if no return has been filed at all and it cannot be said in such a case that there has been a concealment of the particulars of income or deliberate furnishing of inac…

Bhawani Shankar Gupta, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1) Jaipur, Jaipur

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

ITA 43/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

…ose provisions. So interpreted, I would not, in my opinion, be right in placing on section 28(1)(b) the construction for which the learned Government Pleader contends." (p. 133) 12. The Madras High Court in the case S. Santhosa Nadar v. First Addl. ITO [1962] 46 ITR 411 has gone to the extent that a voluntary return filed after the period of four years from the close of the assessment year is not a valid return and such a case should be regarded as if no return has been filed at all and it cannot be said in such a case that there has been a concealment of the particulars of income or deliberate furnishing of inac…

Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 330/JPR/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 217BSection 271B

…ose provisions. So interpreted, I would not, in my opinion, be right in placing on section 28(1)(b) the construction for which the learned Government Pleader contends." (p. 133) 12. The Madras High Court in the case S. Santhosa Nadar v. First Addl. ITO [1962] 46 ITR 411 has gone to the extent that a voluntary return filed after the period of four years from the close of the assessment year is not a valid return and such a case should be regarded as if no return has been filed at all and it cannot be said in such a case that there has been a concealment of the particulars of income or deliberate furnishing of inac…

Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO WD-4(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Ms Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271B

…ose provisions. So interpreted, I would not, in my opinion, be right in placing on section 28(1)(b) the construction for which the learned Government Pleader contends." (p. 133) 12. The Madras High Court in the case S. Santhosa Nadar v. First Addl. ITO [1962] 46 ITR 411 has gone to the extent that a voluntary return filed after the period of four years from the close of the assessment year is not a valid return and such a case should be regarded as if no return has been filed at all and it cannot be said in such a case that there has been a concealment of the particulars of income or deliberate furnishing of inac…

Mr. Manoj Kumar Gour, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-4(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 247/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

…se provisions. So interpreted, I would not, in my opinion, be right in placing on section 28(1)(b) the construction for which the learned Government Pleader contends." (p. 133) 12. The Madras High Court in the case S. Santhosa Nadar v. First Addl. ITO [1962] 46 ITR 411 has gone to the extent that a voluntary return filed after the period of four years from the close of the assessment year is not a valid return and such a case should be regarded as if no return has been filed at all and it cannot be said in such a case that there has been a concealment of the particulars of income or deliberate furnishing of inac…

Shri Jitendra P.Vaghela, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-6(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 1731/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jul 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Shri Jaimin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Shukla, Sr.D.R
Section 133ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2009-10 Jitendra P. Vaghela At & The ITO, Post-Vicchiya, Sanand Ward-6(3), Ahmedabad road, Taluka-Sanand, Vs (Respondent) Dist._ Ahmedabad-382110 PAN No: AGUPV8557B (Appellant) Appellant by : Shri Shri Jaimin Shah, A.R. Respondent by : Shri S. S. Shukla, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 19-04-2022 Date of pronouncement : 13-07-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against th…

Shahnaz Khanam, Jhalawar vs. Income Tax Officer, Jhalawar

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

ITA 38/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 May 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Suhani Mamodia (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai (DCIT)
Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…ose provisions. So interpreted, I would not, in my opinion, be right in placing on section 28(1)(b) the construction for which the learned Government Pleader contends." (p. 133) 12. The Madras High Court in the case S. Santhosa Nadar v. First Addl. ITO [1962] 46 ITR 411 has gone to the extent that a voluntary return filed after the period of four years from the close of the assessment year is not a valid return and such a case should be regarded as if no return has been filed at all and it cannot be said in such a case that there has been a concealment of the particulars of income or deliberate furnishing of inac…

Ashok Arora, Faridabad vs. ITO, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3275/DEL/2009[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…held that for levy of maximum penalty under s. 28(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1922, the indispensable condition precedent is that the assessee should have furnished his return. The Madras High Court in the case of S. Santhosa Nadar vs. First Addl. ITO & Anr. (1962) 46 ITR 411 (Mad) while dealing with a case where a voluntary return was filed after a period of four years from the close of the assessment year and as such, was not a valid return, held that such a case should be regarded as if no return had been filed at all. The Court held that it could not be said in such a case that there had been a concealment of the p…

Santhosa Nadar v. First Addl. ITO (46 ITR 411) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax