Varkey Chacko v. CIT

203 ITR 885Supreme Court of India1993#7139 most cited

What is Varkey Chacko v. CIT authority for?

A penalty for concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars can only be imposed when the assessing authority is satisfied that such concealment or inaccuracy has occurred. Penalty proceedings can only be initiated after an assessment order has been made that finds such concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Varkey Chacko v. CIT · section 271(1)(c) · penalty for concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · assessment order · satisfaction of assessing authority

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 253(1)(a)section 276cbona fide mistakefurnishing inaccurate particulars of incomefurnishing inaccurate particularspenalty u/s 271(1)(c)concealment of incomepenalty under section 271(1)(c)section 253reopening of assessmentlevy of penaltysection 271(1)

Judgments citing Varkey Chacko v. CIT

Monish Ranjan Dasgupta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 61(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 2447/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

…assessing officer that assessee had concealed income with reference to return of income filed by him in response to notice u/s 148. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Varkey I.T.A. No.: 2447/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Monish Ranjan Dasgupta. Chacko v. CIT [1993] 203 ITR 885 has held that a penalty for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income can be imposed only when the assessing authority is satisfied that there has been such concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. A penalty proceeding, therefore, can be initiated only after an assessment order has been ma…

Amitabha Sanyal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-58(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

ITA 359/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Nov 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amitabha Sanyal, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 254(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…eturned income has been accepted, there is no satisfaction recorded by the assessing officer that assessee had concealed income with reference to return of income filed by him in response to notice u/s 148. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Varkey Chacko v. CIT [1993] 203 ITR 885 has held that a penalty for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income can be imposed only when the assessing authority is satisfied that there has been such concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. A penalty proceeding, therefore, can be initiated only after an assessment order has been ma…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 vs. Sumitomo Corporation India (P) Ltd

ITA/52/2023HC Delhi02 Sept 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

…3) of the Act continues to vest in the Income-Tax Officer. Thus, the ratio of the decision in Dhadi Sahu's case, [1993] 199 ITR 610 (SC) does not apply to the issue in hand. The decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Mohinder Lal's case, [1987] 168 ITR 101 [FB] and this court in Sudhir Sareen's case, [1981] 128 ITR 445 merely say that the provisions of section 144B are mandatory, with which proposition there is no quarrel. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that section 144B of the Act is only a procedural provision and the assessment order passed by ignoring the said provisions canno…

Kalipada Saha, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward-24(3), Hooghly.

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1191/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…eturned income has been accepted, there is no satisfaction recorded by the assessing officer that assessee had concealed income with reference to return of income filed by him in response to notice u/s 148. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Varkey Chacko v. CIT [1993] 203 ITR 885 has held that a penalty for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income can be imposed only when the assessing authority is satisfied that there has been such concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. A penalty proceeding, therefore, can be initiated only after an assessment order has been ma…

Kalipada Saha, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward-24(3), Hooghly.

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1190/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…eturned income has been accepted, there is no satisfaction recorded by the assessing officer that assessee had concealed income with reference to return of income filed by him in response to notice u/s 148. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Varkey Chacko v. CIT [1993] 203 ITR 885 has held that a penalty for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income can be imposed only when the assessing authority is satisfied that there has been such concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. A penalty proceeding, therefore, can be initiated only after an assessment order has been ma…

Kalipada Saha, Hoohly vs. ITO, Ward-24(3), Hooghly.

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1189/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…eturned income has been accepted, there is no satisfaction recorded by the assessing officer that assessee had concealed income with reference to return of income filed by him in response to notice u/s 148. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Varkey Chacko v. CIT [1993] 203 ITR 885 has held that a penalty for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income can be imposed only when the assessing authority is satisfied that there has been such concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. A penalty proceeding, therefore, can be initiated only after an assessment order has been ma…

Kalipada Saha, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward-24(3), Hooghly

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1188/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…eturned income has been accepted, there is no satisfaction recorded by the assessing officer that assessee had concealed income with reference to return of income filed by him in response to notice u/s 148. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Varkey Chacko v. CIT [1993] 203 ITR 885 has held that a penalty for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income can be imposed only when the assessing authority is satisfied that there has been such concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. A penalty proceeding, therefore, can be initiated only after an assessment order has been ma…

Vasimkhan Hamidkhan Pathan, Dang vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Navsari

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.704/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Vasimkhan Hamidkhan Pathan Income Tax Officer Ward-5, Navsari, Income Ta Office, Charpool, O Main Bazar, At & Po Waghai Vs. Awabaug, Navsari-396445 Tal, Dang-394730 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bptpp 6081 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…eturned income has been accepted, there is no satisfaction recorded by the assessing officer that assessee had concealed income with reference to return of income filed by him in response to notice u/s 148. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Varkey Chacko v. CIT [1993] 203 ITR 885 has held that a penalty for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income can be imposed only when the assessing authority is satisfied that there has been such concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. A penalty proceeding, therefore, can be initiated only after an assessment order has been ma…

Vinod (Ratan) Suhalka, Udaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 241/JODH/2019[2007-08]Status: PendingITAT Jodhpur05 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

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

…o Section 271(1)(c) 6.5 So far as the High Court decisions cited by the assessee are concerned, they either do not pertain to search cases or were rendered before the insertion of Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c), as discussed below 1.Varkay Chacko Vis CIT 203 ITR 885 (SC) 2.K.R. CHinni Krishna Chetty (2000) 246 ITR 121 n the instant case penalty is being upheld in light of the deeming provisions of Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c), applicable specifically in cases where a search has been conducted. However, in the above two cases, relied upon by the assessee, there was no search therefore the decisions hav…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -6 vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd

ITA/995/2019HC Delhi02 Mar 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

…3) of the Act continues to vest in the Income-Tax Officer. Thus, the ratio of the decision in Dhadi Sahu's case, [1993] 199 ITR 610 (SC) does not apply to the issue in hand. The decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Mohinder Lal's case, [1987] 168 ITR 101 [FB] and this court in Sudhir Sareen's case, [1981] 128 ITR 445 merely say that the provisions of section 144B are mandatory, with which proposition there is no quarrel. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that section 144B of the Act is only a procedural provision and the assessment order passed by ignoring the said provisions canno…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -6 vs. Microsoft India ( R & D) Pvt. Ltd

ITA/993/2019HC Delhi02 Mar 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

…3) of the Act continues to vest in the Income-Tax Officer. Thus, the ratio of the decision in Dhadi Sahu's case, [1993] 199 ITR 610 (SC) does not apply to the issue in hand. The decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Mohinder Lal's case, [1987] 168 ITR 101 [FB] and this court in Sudhir Sareen's case, [1981] 128 ITR 445 merely say that the provisions of section 144B are mandatory, with which proposition there is no quarrel. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that section 144B of the Act is only a procedural provision and the assessment order passed by ignoring the said provisions canno…

M/S. Chhatrapati Shivaji Shikshan Sansthan, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur

In the result, the levy of penalty on such addition is hereby deleted

ITA 1387/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2020AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav (Adv.)For Respondent: Miss Chanchal Meena (JCIT)
Section 10Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 4Section 68

…income is the condition precedent for levy of penalty and such satisfaction must be arrived at in the course of any proceedings under this Act. Further, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CIT vs Mohinder Lal 168 ITR 101 and Hon’ble Karnataka High Court decision in case of CIT vs MWP Ltd (ITA no. 332/2007). 6. The ld DR is heard who has relied on the order of the lower authorities. 7. Heard both the parties and pursued the material available on record. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention so raised by the ld AR, we refer to the assessment order passe…

M/S. M & M Machine Craft (P) Ltd., Meerut vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2518/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Senior DR
Section 1Section 139(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 80GSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER and DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2518/Del./2015 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) M/s. M & M Machine Craft (P) Ltd., vs. DCIT, Circle 6 (1), C/o M/s. Malik & Co. (Advocates), New Delhi. 305, Thapar Nagar, Meerut. (PAN : AAACM6385K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Sanjay Malik, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Saras Kumar, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 22.01.2020 Date of Order : 17.02.2020 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant, M/s. M & M Machine Craft (P) Ltd. (hereinafter r…

M/S Bio-Rad Laboratories (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1415/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR
Section 271GSection 273BSection 275Section 92CSection 92DSection 92D(3)

…, as it emerges in the present case, could not be postponed or varied. Learned counsel relied upon the rulings of the Supreme Court in Brij Mohan vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1979) 120 ITR 1 SC and also Varkey Chacko vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1993) 203 ITR 885 (SC), to say that event of default or at the most the event of recording reasons constitutes the defining point of jurisdiction. In the present case, so called default, noticed by the AO, was acted upon on 25.03.2014. The mere circumstance that the AO did not choose to act upon, it did not mean that the cause for imposing penalty was postponed wi…

M/S. Pipal Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 450/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. B.N. Goswamy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. V.R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…stand of appellant in right perspective, grossly erred in holding that the Assessing Officer had valid jurisdiction for levy of penalty by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Varkey Chako vs. CIT, 4 ITA No.450/Del./2011 203 ITR 885 (SC). The reliance placed on this decision is completely misplaced, being not applicable to the present case. It was submitted that the penalty order has been passed on 31.03.2009, whereas the case stood transferred to another jurisdiction much before on 07.02.2007. It is also submitted that on merits also the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not properly…

Ms. Meeta Gutgutia, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 327/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2008-09 Meeta Gutgutia, Vs Acit, J-238, Sainik Farms, Central Cirle-10, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Afdpg2774B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ridhi Karan Aggarwal Respondent By: Shri P.Damkanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.03.2016

For Appellant: Shri Ridhi Karan AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri P.Damkanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…rned income has been accepted, there is no satisfaction recorded by the assessing officer that assessee had concealed income with reference to return of income filed by him in response to notice u/s 148. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Varkey Chacko v. CIT [1993] 203 ITR 885 has held that a penalty for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income can be imposed only when the assessing authority is satisfied that there has been such concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. A penalty proceeding, therefore, can be initiated only after an assessment order has been ma…

Varkey Chacko v. CIT (203 ITR 885) — Cited in 16 Judgments | BharatTax