86 Taxman30 (Gujarat) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. S.P Bhatt

97 ITR 440High Court1974#9179 most cited

What is 86 Taxman30 (Gujarat) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. S.P Bhatt authority for?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) errs in deleting a penalty under section 271(1)(c) if the assessee failed to substantiate transactions claimed in its return, thereby evading taxes.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Commissioner of Income Tax v. S.P Bhatt · 97 ITR 440 · penalty deletion · section 271(1)(c) · furnishing inaccurate particulars of income · concealment of income · appeal before CIT(A) · assessing officer held evasion · substantiate transactions

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 274Section 69CSection 250Section 132Section 148

Issues it is cited on

deletion of penaltyfurnishing inaccurate particulars of incomepenalty u/s 271(1)(c)appeal before cit(a)furnishing inaccurate particularsconcealment of incomesection 274section 69csection 271(1)cross objectionsection 271section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing 86 Taxman30 (Gujarat) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. S.P Bhatt

Aakash Universal Limited ( Merged Entity Rajkiran Textiles Pvt Ltd), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 13(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 1197/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…rms, etc. were filed during the course of assessment proceedings. In this regard, the Appellant relies on the following decisions: Nathu Ram Premchand vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 561 (All); CIT vs. Ponnuswamy Naidu (1995) 214 ITR 185 (Mad); CIT vs. S P Bhatt (1974) 97 ITR 440 (Guj). 11. Lastly, assuming without accepting, the parties from whom the Appellant had received the share application mоnеу are bogus than also the addition u/s.68 of the Act cannot be made as the Appellant has provided identity of the said shareholders and the Department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(6), Surat vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Surat

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 106/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

…(A) has erred in deleting the penalty is not in accordance with the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Subhash Trading Co. [1996] 86 Taxman30 (Gujarat) and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs S.P Bhatt [1974] 97 ITR 440(Guj.)? c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act of ITA No.106/SRT/2025/AY.2009-10 Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya Rs.17,462/- without appreciating the fact that the Assessing Officer has correctly held that the assessee has failed to su…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Surat, Anavil Business Centre vs. Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Diwali Baug Athwalines

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 115/SRT/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.107 To 109/Srt/2025 Assessment Years:(2010-11 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Ward – 1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Rander Road, Surat Near Navyug College, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akvps5306G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Srt/2025 Assessment Year:(2007-08) The Ito, Vs. Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Ward – 1(3)(1), 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Surat Athwalines, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.1/Srt/2025 [Arising In Ita No.115/Srt/2025] Assessment Year:(2007-08) Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Vs. The Ito, 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Ward – 1(3)(1), Athwalines, Surat - 395001 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mitul R. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 271(1)(c)

…(A) has erred in deleting the penalty is not in accordance with the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Subhash Trading Co. [1996] 86 Taxman30 (Gujarat) and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs S.P Bhatt [1974] 97 ITR 440(Guj.)? c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs.24,019/- without appreciating the fact that the Assessing Officer has correctly held that the assessee has failed to substantiate the transactions claimed in its return of income the…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(6), Surat vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Surat

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 109/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.107 To 109/Srt/2025 Assessment Years:(2010-11 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Ward – 1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Rander Road, Surat Near Navyug College, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akvps5306G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Srt/2025 Assessment Year:(2007-08) The Ito, Vs. Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Ward – 1(3)(1), 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Surat Athwalines, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.1/Srt/2025 [Arising In Ita No.115/Srt/2025] Assessment Year:(2007-08) Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Vs. The Ito, 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Ward – 1(3)(1), Athwalines, Surat - 395001 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mitul R. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 271(1)(c)

…(A) has erred in deleting the penalty is not in accordance with the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Subhash Trading Co. [1996] 86 Taxman30 (Gujarat) and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs S.P Bhatt [1974] 97 ITR 440(Guj.)? c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs.24,019/- without appreciating the fact that the Assessing Officer has correctly held that the assessee has failed to substantiate the transactions claimed in its return of income the…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(6), Surat vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Surat

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 108/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.107 To 109/Srt/2025 Assessment Years:(2010-11 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Ward – 1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Rander Road, Surat Near Navyug College, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akvps5306G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Srt/2025 Assessment Year:(2007-08) The Ito, Vs. Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Ward – 1(3)(1), 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Surat Athwalines, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.1/Srt/2025 [Arising In Ita No.115/Srt/2025] Assessment Year:(2007-08) Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Vs. The Ito, 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Ward – 1(3)(1), Athwalines, Surat - 395001 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mitul R. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 271(1)(c)

…(A) has erred in deleting the penalty is not in accordance with the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Subhash Trading Co. [1996] 86 Taxman30 (Gujarat) and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs S.P Bhatt [1974] 97 ITR 440(Guj.)? c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs.24,019/- without appreciating the fact that the Assessing Officer has correctly held that the assessee has failed to substantiate the transactions claimed in its return of income the…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(6), Surat vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Surat

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 107/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.107 To 109/Srt/2025 Assessment Years:(2010-11 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Ward – 1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Rander Road, Surat Near Navyug College, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akvps5306G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Srt/2025 Assessment Year:(2007-08) The Ito, Vs. Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Ward – 1(3)(1), 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Surat Athwalines, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.1/Srt/2025 [Arising In Ita No.115/Srt/2025] Assessment Year:(2007-08) Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Vs. The Ito, 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Ward – 1(3)(1), Athwalines, Surat - 395001 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mitul R. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 271(1)(c)

…(A) has erred in deleting the penalty is not in accordance with the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Subhash Trading Co. [1996] 86 Taxman30 (Gujarat) and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs S.P Bhatt [1974] 97 ITR 440(Guj.)? c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs.24,019/- without appreciating the fact that the Assessing Officer has correctly held that the assessee has failed to substantiate the transactions claimed in its return of income the…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat vs. Borda Brothers, Surat

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed

ITA 1068/SRT/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: None for AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…(A) has erred in deleting the penalty is not in accordance with the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Subhash Trading Co [1996] 86 Taxman 30 (Gujarat) and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs S.P Bhatt [1974] 97 ITR 440 (Guj)? c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 3,24,52,950/- without appreciating the fact that the Assessing Officer has correctly held that the assessee has failed to substantiate the transactions claimed in its return of inc…

Income Tax Officer, Surat vs. Borda Brothers, Varachha Road, Surat

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed

ITA 1062/SRT/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: None for AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…(A) has erred in deleting the penalty is not in accordance with the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Subhash Trading Co [1996] 86 Taxman 30 (Gujarat) and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs S.P Bhatt [1974] 97 ITR 440 (Guj)? c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 3,24,52,950/- without appreciating the fact that the Assessing Officer has correctly held that the assessee has failed to substantiate the transactions claimed in its return of inc…

The DCIT-1(3)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. M/S Fern Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1402/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 139Section 143Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

…Court in National Textiles vs. CIT (2001) 249 ITR 125 (Guj) has also held that the imposition of penalty cannot be justified merely because of additions being sustained and similar view was earlier expressed by the same High Court in CIT vs. S.P. Bhatt (1974) 97 ITR 440 (Guj) and CIT vs. Vinay Chand Hiralal (1979) 120 ITR 752 (Guj) for penalty not to be levied and it was further made clear that when two views are reasonably possible on the facts and circumstances, the imposition of penalty cannot be justified. 13. No penalty when income disclosed in return and assessed income is NIL: Appellant states that a glanc…

Income Tax Officer 13(2) (3), Mumbai vs. Swar Creative Art Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, sans merit

ITA 5992/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountnt Member आअसं. 5992/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2009-10) Ito-13(2)(4), R. No. 146B, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ...... अपीलाथ- /Appellant

For Appellant: Ms. Bharti SinghFor Respondent: None
Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…rejecting accounts of the asessee has assessed the income by applying estimated Gross Profit (GP) rate, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.P. Bhatt reported as 97 ITR 440. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. Reported as 303 ITR 53 has held that where an addition has been made on the basis of estimations and not on account of any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. There are other catina of judgments by…

M/S Sher Mohammed & Co, Mumbai vs. ACIT Ward-26(3), Mumbai

ITA 5986/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 5986/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2009-10) M/S. Sher Mohammed & Co., Flat No. 23, 6A, Taxi Men Colony, Lbs Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai-400070. Pan: Aasfs7479M ...... अपीलाथ- /Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit- Ward (26(3), C-11, 5Th Floor, R.No. 501, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. ..... .ितवाद0/Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh
Section 271(1)(c)

…rejecting accounts of the asessee has assessed the income by applying estimated Gross Profit (GP) rate, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.P. Bhatt reported as 97 ITR 440. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. reported as 303 ITR 53 has held that where an addition has been made on the basis of estimates and no concrete evidence of concealment is established, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. 8. There are other catina of judgments by va…

ITO-28(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Lesly Baby Thomas, Mumbai

ITA 4934/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountnt Member आअसं.4934/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2009-10) Ito-28(2)(1), R. No. 326, 3Rd Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi Rly. Station Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703. ...... अपीलाथ. /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S Lesly Baby Thomas Shop No.22, Mahavir Bhakti, Plot No. 93, Sector-15, Koperkhairane, Navi Mumbai-400709. Pan: Adbpt4067A ..... /ितवाद1/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vinod BhaskaranFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel
Section 271(1)(c)

…assessed the income by applying estimated Gross Profit (GP) rate, आअसं. 4934/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2009-10) no penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.P. Bhatt reported as 97 ITR 440. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. Reported as 303 ITR 53 has held that where an addition has been made on the basis of estimations and not on account of any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. There are other catina of judgments by…

86 Taxman30 (Gujarat) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. S.P Bhatt (97 ITR 440) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax