Smt. Kiran Devi v. ACIT

125 TTJ 631Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#5039 most cited

What is Smt. Kiran Devi v. ACIT authority for?

Income disclosed in a return filed in response to a notice under section 153C, following a search, which was not disclosed in the original return, constitutes a clear case of concealment attracting penalty under section 271(1)(c). Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) need not be invoked in such circumstances.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Smt. Kiran Devi v. ACIT · section 153C · section 271(1)(c) · concealment of income · penalty for concealment · income disclosed after search · voluntary disclosure

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 132Section 148Section 274Section 276CSection 139(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 276csection 276section 271(c)section 138section 40a(ia)time barred assessmentsection 270a(2)bona fide mistakesection 142(2a)section 92dunder-reporting of incomepenalty under section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing Smt. Kiran Devi v. ACIT

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1055/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2020-21
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

….) Ltd. vs CIT [2013]\n38 taxmann.com 448 (SC) which held as under:\n\"Voluntary disclosure does not release assessee from mischief\nof penal proceedings under section 271(1)(c).\"\n8.7 Further Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Smt. Kiran Devi\nVs ACIT [2009] 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi) held that where certain\nincome was disclosed in return filed in response to notice\nunder section 153C following search, which income was not\ndisclosed in original return, it was a clear case of concealment\nof income attracting penalty under section 271(1)(c); in such a\ncase it was unnecessary to invoke Explanation 5 to section\n271(1…

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1054/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

…271(1)(c)." of penal proceedings under section 271(1)(c)." 8.7 Further Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Smt. Kiran Devi 8.7 Further Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Smt. Kiran Devi 8.7 Further Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Smt. Kiran Devi Vs ACIT [2009] 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi) held that where certain Vs ACIT [2009] 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi) held that where certain Vs ACIT [2009] 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi) held that where certain income was disclosed in return filed income was disclosed in return filed in response to notice in response to notice under section 153C following search, which income was not under section 153C fol…

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1053/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

…271(1)(c)." of penal proceedings under section 271(1)(c)." 8.7 Further Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Smt. Kiran Devi 8.7 Further Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Smt. Kiran Devi 8.7 Further Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Smt. Kiran Devi Vs ACIT [2009] 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi) held that where certain Vs ACIT [2009] 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi) held that where certain Vs ACIT [2009] 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi) held that where certain income was disclosed in return filed income was disclosed in return filed in response to notice in response to notice under section 153C following search, which income was not under section 153C fol…

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DICT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1052/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

…271(1)(c)." of penal proceedings under section 271(1)(c)." 8.7 Further Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Smt. Kiran Devi 8.7 Further Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Smt. Kiran Devi 8.7 Further Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Smt. Kiran Devi Vs ACIT [2009] 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi) held that where certain Vs ACIT [2009] 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi) held that where certain Vs ACIT [2009] 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi) held that where certain income was disclosed in return filed income was disclosed in return filed in response to notice in response to notice under section 153C following search, which income was not under section 153C fol…

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1051/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

…271(1)(c)." of penal proceedings under section 271(1)(c)." 8.7 Further Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Smt. Kiran Devi 8.7 Further Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Smt. Kiran Devi 8.7 Further Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Smt. Kiran Devi Vs ACIT [2009] 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi) held that where certain Vs ACIT [2009] 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi) held that where certain Vs ACIT [2009] 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi) held that where certain income was disclosed in return filed income was disclosed in return filed in response to notice in response to notice under section 153C following search, which income was not under section 153C fol…

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY\n2020-21 are partly allowed

ITA 1050/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

….) Ltd. vs CIT [2013]\n38 taxmann.com 448 (SC) which held as under:\n\"Voluntary disclosure does not release assessee from mischief\nof penal proceedings under section 271(1)(c).\"\n8.7 Further Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Smt. Kiran Devi\nVs ACIT [2009] 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi) held that where certain\nincome was disclosed in return filed in response to notice\nunder section 153C following search, which income was not\ndisclosed in original return, it was a clear case of concealment\nof income attracting penalty under section 271(1)(c); in such a\ncase it was unnecessary to invoke Explanation 5 to section\n271(1…

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY\n2020-21 are partly allowed

ITA 1049/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

….) Ltd. vs CIT [2013]\n38 taxmann.com 448 (SC) which held as under:\n\"Voluntary disclosure does not release assessee from mischief\nof penal proceedings under section 271(1)(c).\"\n8.7 Further Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Smt. Kiran Devi\nVs ACIT [2009] 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi) held that where certain\nincome was disclosed in return filed in response to notice\nunder section 153C following search, which income was not\ndisclosed in original return, it was a clear case of concealment\nof income attracting penalty under section 271(1)(c); in such a\ncase it was unnecessary to invoke Explanation 5 to section\n271(1…

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

…ischief of section 271(1)(c) and they would also not Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand Bansal vs. ACIT be entitled to claim benefit of exception, carved out in Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c). 2. Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Smt Kiran Devi Vs ACIT [2009] 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi) held that where certain income was disclosed in return filed in response to notice under section 153C following search, which income was not disclosed in original return, it was a clear case of concealment of income attracting penalty under section 271(1)(c); in such a case it was unnecessary to invoke Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c).…

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

…ischief of section 271(1)(c) and they would also not Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand Bansal vs. ACIT be entitled to claim benefit of exception, carved out in Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c). 2. Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Smt Kiran Devi Vs ACIT [2009] 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi) held that where certain income was disclosed in return filed in response to notice under section 153C following search, which income was not disclosed in original return, it was a clear case of concealment of income attracting penalty under section 271(1)(c); in such a case it was unnecessary to invoke Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c).…

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

…ischief of section 271(1)(c) and they would also not Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand Bansal vs. ACIT be entitled to claim benefit of exception, carved out in Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c). 2. Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Smt Kiran Devi Vs ACIT [2009] 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi) held that where certain income was disclosed in return filed in response to notice under section 153C following search, which income was not disclosed in original return, it was a clear case of concealment of income attracting penalty under section 271(1)(c); in such a case it was unnecessary to invoke Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c).…

GUNTI ASHWIN KUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2365/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…h action, the provisions of the explanation 5A to section 271(1) is clearly attracted in this case and the AO is legally correct in levying penalty. He relied on the following cases: 1. Prasanna Dugar, [2015] 59 taxmann.com 99 (Cal.) 2. Smt. Kiran Devi [2009] 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi). 16.1 The ld. DR further submitted that initiation of proceedings u/s 153C is a primary requirement and, thereafter, all other proceedings shall be carried out as per section 153A. In this regard, he referred to the provisions of sections 153C and 153A of the IT Act, 1961. He further submitted that the assessment made u/s 153C and imposin…

GUNTI NAVEEN KUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2364/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…h action, the provisions of the explanation 5A to section 271(1) is clearly attracted in this case and the AO is legally correct in levying penalty. He relied on the following cases: 1. Prasanna Dugar, [2015] 59 taxmann.com 99 (Cal.) 2. Smt. Kiran Devi [2009] 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi). 16.1 The ld. DR further submitted that initiation of proceedings u/s 153C is a primary requirement and, thereafter, all other proceedings shall be carried out as per section 153A. In this regard, he referred to the provisions of sections 153C and 153A of the IT Act, 1961. He further submitted that the assessment made u/s 153C and imposin…

GUNTI ANIL KUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2363/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…h action, the provisions of the explanation 5A to section 271(1) is clearly attracted in this case and the AO is legally correct in levying penalty. He relied on the following cases: 1. Prasanna Dugar, [2015] 59 taxmann.com 99 (Cal.) 2. Smt. Kiran Devi [2009] 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi). 16.1 The ld. DR further submitted that initiation of proceedings u/s 153C is a primary requirement and, thereafter, all other proceedings shall be carried out as per section 153A. In this regard, he referred to the provisions of sections 153C and 153A of the IT Act, 1961. He further submitted that the assessment made u/s 153C and imposin…

GUNTI PRASAD,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2362/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…h action, the provisions of the explanation 5A to section 271(1) is clearly attracted in this case and the AO is legally correct in levying penalty. He relied on the following cases: 1. Prasanna Dugar, [2015] 59 taxmann.com 99 (Cal.) 2. Smt. Kiran Devi [2009] 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi). 16.1 The ld. DR further submitted that initiation of proceedings u/s 153C is a primary requirement and, thereafter, all other proceedings shall be carried out as per section 153A. In this regard, he referred to the provisions of sections 153C and 153A of the IT Act, 1961. He further submitted that the assessment made u/s 153C and imposin…

GUNTI PRASAD ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2361/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…h action, the provisions of the explanation 5A to section 271(1) is clearly attracted in this case and the AO is legally correct in levying penalty. He relied on the following cases: 1. Prasanna Dugar, [2015] 59 taxmann.com 99 (Cal.) 2. Smt. Kiran Devi [2009] 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi). 16.1 The ld. DR further submitted that initiation of proceedings u/s 153C is a primary requirement and, thereafter, all other proceedings shall be carried out as per section 153A. In this regard, he referred to the provisions of sections 153C and 153A of the IT Act, 1961. He further submitted that the assessment made u/s 153C and imposin…

GUNTI PRASAD (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2360/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…h action, the provisions of the explanation 5A to section 271(1) is clearly attracted in this case and the AO is legally correct in levying penalty. He relied on the following cases: 1. Prasanna Dugar, [2015] 59 taxmann.com 99 (Cal.) 2. Smt. Kiran Devi [2009] 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi). 16.1 The ld. DR further submitted that initiation of proceedings u/s 153C is a primary requirement and, thereafter, all other proceedings shall be carried out as per section 153A. In this regard, he referred to the provisions of sections 153C and 153A of the IT Act, 1961. He further submitted that the assessment made u/s 153C and imposin…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAVIOUR BUILDERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4818/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Shashwat Bajpai and Shri Sharad Agarwal, Advocates
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…com 440 (Delhi- Trib.). The learned CIT-DR, on the other hand, relied upon the following decisions :- (i) CIT Vs. Prasanna Dugar – [2015] 59 taxmann.com 99 (Calcutta). (ii) ACIT Vs. Smt. J. Mythili – 35 taxmann.com 86. (iii) Smt. Kiran Devi Vs. ACIT – [2009] 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi). (iv) CIT Vs. S.J. Prasad – [2008] 220 CTR 169 (Ker). (v) CIT Vs. Smt. Meera Devi – [2012] 26 taxmann.com 132 (Delhi). (vi) Shourya Towers (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT – [2013] 30 taxmann.com 10 (Delhi). (vii) Sanjay Aggarwal Vs. CIT – [2011] 15 taxmann.com 34 (P&H). 4. We have carefully considered the submissions of both the sides and perused the…

CREW BOS PRODUCTS LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

ITA 5236/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Beg, Senior DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ile Processors – 295 ITR 244; B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co. vs. CIT – 236 ITR 977; CIT vs. Gates Foam & Rubber Co. – 91 ITR 467; CIT vs. Prasanna Dugar – 371 ITR 19 (Cal.); ACIT vs. Smt. J. Mythili – 35 taxmann.com 86; Smt. Kran Devi vs. ACIT – (2009) 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi); CIT vs. S.J. Prasad – (2008) 220 CTR 169 (Ker.); and CIT vs. Smt. Meera Devi – (2012) 26 txmann.com 132 (Delhi). 10. First of all, when we examine satisfaction recorded by the AO in para 3 of the assessment order which reads as, “For the 6 ITA No.5235 & 5236/Del./2016 above mentioned reasons, I am satisfied that assessee company conc…

CREW BOS PRODUCTS LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

ITA 5235/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Beg, Senior DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ile Processors – 295 ITR 244; B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co. vs. CIT – 236 ITR 977; CIT vs. Gates Foam & Rubber Co. – 91 ITR 467; CIT vs. Prasanna Dugar – 371 ITR 19 (Cal.); ACIT vs. Smt. J. Mythili – 35 taxmann.com 86; Smt. Kran Devi vs. ACIT – (2009) 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi); CIT vs. S.J. Prasad – (2008) 220 CTR 169 (Ker.); and CIT vs. Smt. Meera Devi – (2012) 26 txmann.com 132 (Delhi). 10. First of all, when we examine satisfaction recorded by the AO in para 3 of the assessment order which reads as, “For the 6 ITA No.5235 & 5236/Del./2016 above mentioned reasons, I am satisfied that assessee company conc…

M/S. SPAZE TOWERS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2045/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: 1. the Learned CIT(A) has erred in law & facts of the case in sustaining the pen
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 4

…vant assessment years and amount shown in returns filed as 'other income' was not a part of her regular accounts, such amount would squarely come within purview of concealed income liable to penalty under section 271 (1 )(c). 4. Smt. Kiran Devi Vs ACIT (2009) 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi) where Hon’ble ITAT Delhi held that where certain income was c sdosed in return filed in response to notice under section 153C following searc- ch income was not disclosed in original return, it was a clear case of concealment of ncome attracting penalty under section 271(1 )(c); in such a case it was not even necessary to invoke Explanati…

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2