← All Phrases

“surrender of income”

Search & SeizureSection 132(4)Section 132(4)324 judgments

The decision most relied on for surrender of income is MAK Data (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (38 Taxmann.com 448), cited in 186 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on surrender of income

MAK Data (P.) Ltd. v. CIT
38 Taxmann.com 448 · 2013 · Supreme Court
186
citing judgments

A voluntary disclosure of income does not automatically exempt an assessee from penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The Assessing Officer must satisfy himself about initiating penalty proceedings during the assessment, but is not required to record this satisfaction in a specific written manner.

PCIT v. Neeraj Jindal
393 ITR 1 · 2017 · High Court
157
citing judgments

If an assessment under Section 148/147 is accepted without modification or addition, or if an amount is surrendered in a return filed under Section 153A, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income can be imposed.

288), Pr.CIT v. Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt Ltd (
241 Taxmann 199 · 2016 · High Court
147
citing judgments

Statements recorded under Section 132(4) cannot alone constitute incriminating material to justify additions in unabated assessments. Corroboration is generally required for such statements to form the sole basis of additions.

CIT v. Naresh Kumar Agarwal
53 Taxmann.com 306 · 2015 · High Court
137
citing judgments

A statement recorded under Section 132(4) during a search operation is akin to a statement under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and cannot be treated as a proven fact or clinching evidence on its own, serving merely as a basis for further investigation.

Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT
168 ITR 705 · 1987 · Supreme Court
86
citing judgments

An assessee's agreement to an addition or voluntary disclosure of income does not automatically establish concealment for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c). While such agreement may arise from various reasons like avoiding litigation, the assessee must still discharge the burden of proving that the addition was not due to concealment.

Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (
373 ITR 9 · 2015 · High Court
86
citing judgments

Additions made for amounts surrendered during a search or survey operation are justified if the assessee fails to provide a satisfactory and bona fide explanation for the surrendered amount or to substantiate its retraction.

CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah
299 ITR 305 · 2008 · High Court
80
citing judgments

During a search operation, the authorized officer recording a statement under Section 132(4) must fully explain Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) to the assessee, particularly the requirement to specify the manner of earning undisclosed income, for a valid claim of penalty immunity. Income not declared or advance tax not paid proportionately before the search date is treated as undisclosed, thereby disallowing advance tax benefits.

306 ITR 277 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT
236 ITR 977 · 1999 · Supreme Court
63
citing judgments

The court decides whether an assessee has concealed income and furnished inaccurate particulars, leading to penalty under section 271(1)(c). The cited passages suggest the case is relied upon when an assessee surrenders income during assessment proceedings due to inability to justify expenses.

Judgments citing surrender of income

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Sri M J Mohan, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.276 To 281/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132(4)

evidence whatsoever to support the above said huge disclosure. He submitted that the assessee has later explained the reason for making the surrender of income, i.e., he had sold a land and the tax liability arising thereon was kept in mind while making the surrender, since he was not sure ... Accordingly, the CBDT has advised the officials not to coerce assesses to disclose undisclosed income during search/surveys. The Ld A.R submitted that the surrender of income of Rs.25.00 crores was related to capital gains only. It is not backed by any other material showing undisclosed income of the assessee. Accordingly

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Sri M J Mohan, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 277/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.276 To 281/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132(4)

evidence whatsoever to support the above said huge disclosure. He submitted that the assessee has later explained the reason for making the surrender of income, i.e., he had sold a land and the tax liability arising thereon was kept in mind while making the surrender, since he was not sure ... Accordingly, the CBDT has advised the officials not to coerce assesses to disclose undisclosed income during search/surveys. The Ld A.R submitted that the surrender of income of Rs.25.00 crores was related to capital gains only. It is not backed by any other material showing undisclosed income of the assessee. Accordingly

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Sri M J Mohan, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 276/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.276 To 281/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132(4)

evidence whatsoever to support the above said huge disclosure. He submitted that the assessee has later explained the reason for making the surrender of income, i.e., he had sold a land and the tax liability arising thereon was kept in mind while making the surrender, since he was not sure ... Accordingly, the CBDT has advised the officials not to coerce assesses to disclose undisclosed income during search/surveys. The Ld A.R submitted that the surrender of income of Rs.25.00 crores was related to capital gains only. It is not backed by any other material showing undisclosed income of the assessee. Accordingly

Mr. Manikkudi Jayaraman Mohan, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2713/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.276 To 281/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132(4)

evidence whatsoever to support the above said huge disclosure. He submitted that the assessee has later explained the reason for making the surrender of income, i.e., he had sold a land and the tax liability arising thereon was kept in mind while making the surrender, since he was not sure ... Accordingly, the CBDT has advised the officials not to coerce assesses to disclose undisclosed income during search/surveys. The Ld A.R submitted that the surrender of income of Rs.25.00 crores was related to capital gains only. It is not backed by any other material showing undisclosed income of the assessee. Accordingly

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Balkishan Saraf, New Delhi

In the result we confirm the order of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the above three additions and dismiss the appeal of the revenue

ITA 5862/DEL/2011[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Acit, Shri Bal Kishan Saraf, Central Circle : 2, 1290 – Katra Dhulia, Vs. New Delhi. Chandni Chowk, Delhi. Pan: Aahps3659Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati [CIT] – D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)

above sum and therefore, for differential sum the above addition was made. c. Addition of Rs. 58,69,000/- with respect non surrender of income of Rs. 49 lakhs in the return of income as per his statement of Rs. 9,69,600/- on account of unaccounted cash

Shri Deshpal Singh Kohli, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

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

ITA 1949/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Deshpal Singh Kohli, Vs Dcit, 46, Saharanpur Road, Dehradun. Dehradun. Pan: Acgpk1599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kanwal Juneja, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vinay Singh Rawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.05.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28Th January, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-4, Kanpur, Relating To The A.Y. 2014-15. 2. Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.1,44,200/- By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) & Confirmed By The Cit(A) Is The Only Issue Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Kanwal Juneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Singh Rawat, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

order dated 19th August, 2019, he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that penalty is not leviable on voluntary surrender of income on account of bona fide mistake of Accountant. He submitted that merely because the addition has been sustained by the AO it does ... order of the AO and the CIT(A). He submitted that but for the scrutiny notice, the assessee would not have surrendered the income and, therefore, the AO has validly levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. So far as the limb is concerned

M/S. Daya Properties & Finance, Bhopal vs. ACIT (Central)-2, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 875/IND/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2017-18

Section 132Section 143(3)

thereafter, a revised return of income was filed on 29.09.2018 declaring total income of Rs.25,89,299/- after including Rs.22 lakhs towards surrender of income made during the course of search for unexplained cash. This amount was short by Rs.15,02,020/- as the surrender during the search was made ... business concern and other individuals referred above at Rs.16,50,360/- which is sufficient enough to cover up the shortfall in surrender of income of Rs.15,02,020/- found during the course of search as on 30.8.2016. 14. We therefore in the given facts and circumstances of the case

The A C I T Central-II, Bhopal vs. S V Infra Developers, Bhopal

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 657/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

facts narrated/discussed in the preceding paras following two aspects needs to be considered. (1) In the case of Shri Nitin Agrawal surrender of income was made looking to various discrepancies noticed by the search team but at the time of completing the assessment Ld. A.O had made separate additions

Ashish Mittal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8172/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

assessee. 3. It is trite law that the voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. 4. The surrender of income in this case was not voluntary because the offer of surrender was made after the detection made by the Assessing Officer, it cannot therefore ... said that the surrender of income was voluntary. Had it been the intention of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of its income, it would have filed the return declaring an income inclusive of the amount which was surrendered later during course of the assessment proceedings

Ashish Mittal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8171/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

assessee. 3. It is trite law that the voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. 4. The surrender of income in this case was not voluntary because the offer of surrender was made after the detection made by the Assessing Officer, it cannot therefore ... said that the surrender of income was voluntary. Had it been the intention of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of its income, it would have filed the return declaring an income inclusive of the amount which was surrendered later during course of the assessment proceedings

Ashish Mittal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8170/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

assessee. 3. It is trite law that the voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. 4. The surrender of income in this case was not voluntary because the offer of surrender was made after the detection made by the Assessing Officer, it cannot therefore ... said that the surrender of income was voluntary. Had it been the intention of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of its income, it would have filed the return declaring an income inclusive of the amount which was surrendered later during course of the assessment proceedings

Ashish Mittal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8169/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

assessee. 3. It is trite law that the voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. 4. The surrender of income in this case was not voluntary because the offer of surrender was made after the detection made by the Assessing Officer, it cannot therefore ... said that the surrender of income was voluntary. Had it been the intention of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of its income, it would have filed the return declaring an income inclusive of the amount which was surrendered later during course of the assessment proceedings

Ashish Mittal, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-7, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8168/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

assessee. 3. It is trite law that the voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. 4. The surrender of income in this case was not voluntary because the offer of surrender was made after the detection made by the Assessing Officer, it cannot therefore ... said that the surrender of income was voluntary. Had it been the intention of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of its income, it would have filed the return declaring an income inclusive of the amount which was surrendered later during course of the assessment proceedings

Ashish Mittal, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8167/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

assessee. 3. It is trite law that the voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. 4. The surrender of income in this case was not voluntary because the offer of surrender was made after the detection made by the Assessing Officer, it cannot therefore ... said that the surrender of income was voluntary. Had it been the intention of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of its income, it would have filed the return declaring an income inclusive of the amount which was surrendered later during course of the assessment proceedings

Ashhish Mittal, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-7, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8166/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

assessee. 3. It is trite law that the voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. 4. The surrender of income in this case was not voluntary because the offer of surrender was made after the detection made by the Assessing Officer, it cannot therefore ... said that the surrender of income was voluntary. Had it been the intention of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of its income, it would have filed the return declaring an income inclusive of the amount which was surrendered later during course of the assessment proceedings

Ayush Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-7, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8165/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

assessee. 3. It is trite law that the voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. 4. The surrender of income in this case was not voluntary because the offer of surrender was made after the detection made by the Assessing Officer, it cannot therefore ... said that the surrender of income was voluntary. Had it been the intention of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of its income, it would have filed the return declaring an income inclusive of the amount which was surrendered later during course of the assessment proceedings

Ayush Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-7, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8164/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

assessee. 3. It is trite law that the voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. 4. The surrender of income in this case was not voluntary because the offer of surrender was made after the detection made by the Assessing Officer, it cannot therefore ... said that the surrender of income was voluntary. Had it been the intention of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of its income, it would have filed the return declaring an income inclusive of the amount which was surrendered later during course of the assessment proceedings

Ayush Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle- 7, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8163/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

assessee. 3. It is trite law that the voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. 4. The surrender of income in this case was not voluntary because the offer of surrender was made after the detection made by the Assessing Officer, it cannot therefore ... said that the surrender of income was voluntary. Had it been the intention of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of its income, it would have filed the return declaring an income inclusive of the amount which was surrendered later during course of the assessment proceedings

Kunal Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-7, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8162/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

assessee. 3. It is trite law that the voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. 4. The surrender of income in this case was not voluntary because the offer of surrender was made after the detection made by the Assessing Officer, it cannot therefore ... said that the surrender of income was voluntary. Had it been the intention of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of its income, it would have filed the return declaring an income inclusive of the amount which was surrendered later during course of the assessment proceedings

Kunal Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-7, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8161/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

assessee. 3. It is trite law that the voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. 4. The surrender of income in this case was not voluntary because the offer of surrender was made after the detection made by the Assessing Officer, it cannot therefore ... said that the surrender of income was voluntary. Had it been the intention of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of its income, it would have filed the return declaring an income inclusive of the amount which was surrendered later during course of the assessment proceedings