Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.22 seconds)
Ashok Raj Nath, Panipat vs Department Of Income Tax cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Suresh Chandra Mittal on 26 July, 2001

The Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal, [2001] 251 ITR 9/119 Taxman 433, upheld the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2000] 241 ITR 124, where in similar circumstances it was held that the initial burden lies on the revenue to establish that the assessee had concealed 11 ITA No.2970/Del./2012 the income had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The burden shifts to the assessee only if he fails to offer any explanation for the undisclosed income or offers an explanation which is found to be false by the Assessing Officer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 288 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Valli Cotton Traders P. Ltd. Reported In ... on 27 April, 2009

and CIT vs. SSP P Ltd.,302 ITR 43 (P&H),the assessee pleaded that penalty proceedings should be dropped. However, the AO did not accept the explanation of the assessee and imposed a penalty of ``10,77,190/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income of ``60,39,824/- while observing that since the revised return had been filed on 10.9.2008 while notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 11.10.2007,revised return was not voluntary nor valid.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 40 - K R Pandian - Full Document

Anantharam Veerasingaiah & Co vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, A.P on 15 April, 1980

8. We have heard the ld. DR and gone through the facts of the case. As is apparent from the aforesaid facts, the AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of an amount of `60,39,824/-comprising addition on account of rental income-`4,63,388/-;disallowance of interest-`2,51,507/-,addition towards short term capital gains on sale of properties-`10,50,950/-;short term capital gains on sale of shares-`1,60,503/- and long term capital gains-`40,98,919/-. The ld. CIT(A) cancelled the penalty on the ground that disallowance of interest was deleted by the ITAT while issue relating to addition towards rental income had been restored to the file of the AO and additional income towards capital gains on sale of properties and shares was disclosed by the assessee suo motu during the course of assessment proceeding. The assessee submitted revised return since in the original return long term capital gain on UTI liquid plus fund institution plan was claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act as also to reflect correct figures of sale of land at Kheri Sadh and rental income. Merely because the assessee disclosed additional income suo motu after issue of a notice u/s 143(2) 10 ITA No.2970/Del./2012 of the Act, does not amount to detection of concealment by the AO. Apparently, the assessee had given all particulars of his income and had disclosed all facts to the AO during the assessment proceedings.. It is not the case of the AO that in reply to a query of the AO, some new facts were discovered or the AO had dug out some information which was not furnished by the assessee. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that no penalty is leviable. It is well settled that assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct and as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ananthraman Veerasinghaiah & Co. Vs. CIT, 123 ITR 457, the finding in the assessment proceedings cannot be regarded as conclusive for the purposes of the penalty proceedings. It is, therefore, necessary to reappreciate and reconsider the matter so as to find out as to whether the addition made in the quantum proceedings actually represents the concealment on the part of the assessee as envisaged in sec. 271(1 )(c) of the Act and whether it is a fit case to impose the penalty by invoking the said provisions. It is also well settled that the criterion and yardsticks for the purpose of imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are different than those applied for making or confirming the additions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 271 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Suraj Bhan & Co. on 16 May, 1983

Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Suraj Bhan [2007] 159 Taxman 26 while following the decision in CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2001] 251 ITR 9(SC), held that when an assessee files a revised return showing higher income and gives an explanation that he offered higher income to buy peace of mind and avoid litigation, penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of higher income having been subsequently declared.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 33 - Full Document

Reliance International Corporation ... vs Income-Tax Officer on 31 October, 1985

8.1 In Qudai International vs. Income Tax Officer 2009 (13) MTC 622 (Trib), the ITAT Lucknow Bench 'A' held that "mere raising of query by the Assessing Officer did not amount to detection of concealment. It cannot therefore, be said that the revised return was filed after detection of concealment and was not voluntary. The term "detection" itself implies the Assessing Officer had reached a conclusion but the query raised by the Assessing Officer was only first step in detection of concealment. If the assessee voluntarily revised the return, it could not be said that it does not fulfill requirements of section 139(5) of the Act." The facts of the present case are also similar to the facts of the aforesaid referred to case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 21 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Arun Kumar Agarwal(Huf) on 13 July, 2012

8.2 Similarly, in the case of Dy. CIT vs. Tarun Agarwal 2009 (13) MTC 831, the ITAT Lucknow Bench 'A' held that "the assessee had surrendered the amount before any specific detection of undisclosed income or even before the issue of notice. Even though a general enquiry was going on and notices had been issued to some of his relatives and the amount might have been surrendered because of compulsion of circumstances, it was not sufficient to penalise the assessee as the factum of detection was not there." In the instant case also, nothing is brought on record that there was any detection at the level of the AO to suggest that the assessee concealed the income on account of capital gains, which was offered for taxation suo motu in the revised return.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 39 - P C Tatia - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs S.V. Electricals Pvt. Ltd. on 3 January, 2005

Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. S.V. Electricals P. Ltd., 155 Taxman 158 and Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in CIT v. Ashim Kumar Agarwal, 153 Taxman 226 held that where the assessee surrenders his full income, though at a later stage, there was no question of any concealment on his part and consequently, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was leviable, and that a omission from return of income did not amount to concealment.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 17 - A M Sapre - Full Document
1   2 Next