Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT

123 ITR 457Supreme Court of India1980#452 most cited

What is Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT authority for?

Penalty proceedings and assessment proceedings are separate and distinct. Findings recorded in assessment proceedings are relevant but not conclusive for penalty proceedings.

202

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT · penalty proceedings · assessment proceedings · separate and distinct · findings not conclusive · Section 271(1)(c) · Section 270A · quantum proceedings · penalty assessment distinction

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 143(3)Section 132Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 143(2)Section 292C

Issues it is cited on

section 270(a)record datesection 270a(8)section 270a(6)section 114section 270a(9)section 271(l)(c)section 142(2a)section 269ssdumb documentspenalty u/s 270asection 245

Judgments citing Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT

Manish Manohardas Asrani, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 1(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4134/MUM/2023[2019-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2024AY 2019-2000

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2019-2000

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram a/w Mr. Shashi Behkal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 139(9)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 250

…70A(9) of the Act? 16. It is well settled that penalty proceedings and assessment proceedings are separate and distinct. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veera Singhaiah & Co. Vs. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC) wherein it was held that findings recorded in assessment proceedings cannot be taken as conclusive for penalty proceedings. Even the provisions of section 270A(6) of the Act provides for granting immunity from penalty if the case falls in "under reporting of income". Moreover different rates of penalty are prescribed for 'under reporting of…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 vs. Jaina Marketing and Associates

ITA/500/2024HC Delhi23 Sept 2024

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

Section 14ASection 270Section 270A

…$~111 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 500/2024 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate. versus JAINA MARKETING AND ASSOCIATES .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA O R D E R % 23.09.2024 1. The Principal Commissioner impugns the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [‘Tribunal’] which has annulled the imposition of penalty under Section 270(A)(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’], observing as follows: - 7. As…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 vs. Jaina Marketing and Associates

ITA - 500 / 2024HC Delhi23 Sept 2024
Section 14ASection 270Section 270A

…$~111 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 500/2024 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate. versus JAINA MARKETING AND ASSOCIATES .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA O R D E R % 23.09.2024 1. The Principal Commissioner impugns the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [‘Tribunal’] which has annulled the imposition of penalty under Section 270(A)(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’], observing as follows: - 7. As…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 3662/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 153ASection 40

…held in Balram Saha v/s. Commissioner of Income Tax (2011) 334 ITR 0383 (In the Culcutta High Court )/ Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Prem Chand Jain (1991) 189 ITR 0320 (in the Punjab and Haryana High Court/ AnantharamVeerasingharah and Co. v/s. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC)/ CIT v/s. Ram Sanchi Gian Chand ( 1972) 86 ITR 724 (P&H). 25. On perusal of assessment order, it is observed that the A.O. before making addition on account of unaccounted income on the basis of seized ledgers has treated such impugned receipts as "On money", "Extrapolated Sales", "Suppressed Receipts/Sales", "Unaccounted receipts/Sales" wi…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 3661/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 153ASection 40

…held in Balram Saha v/s. Commissioner of Income Tax (2011) 334 ITR 0383 (In the Culcutta High Court )/ Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Prem Chand Jain (1991) 189 ITR 0320 (in the Punjab and Haryana High Court/ AnantharamVeerasingharah and Co. v/s. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC)/ CIT v/s. Ram Sanchi Gian Chand ( 1972) 86 ITR 724 (P&H). 25. On perusal of assessment order, it is observed that the A.O. before making addition on account of unaccounted income on the basis of seized ledgers has treated such impugned receipts as "On money", "Extrapolated Sales", "Suppressed Receipts/Sales", "Unaccounted receipts/Sales" wi…

Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2819/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 153ASection 40

…held in Balram Saha v/s. Commissioner of Income Tax (2011) 334 ITR 0383 (In the Culcutta High Court )/ Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Prem Chand Jain (1991) 189 ITR 0320 (in the Punjab and Haryana High Court/ AnantharamVeerasingharah and Co. v/s. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC)/ CIT v/s. Ram Sanchi Gian Chand ( 1972) 86 ITR 724 (P&H). 25. On perusal of assessment order, it is observed that the A.O. before making addition on account of unaccounted income on the basis of seized ledgers has treated such impugned receipts as "On money", "Extrapolated Sales", "Suppressed Receipts/Sales", "Unaccounted receipts/Sales" wi…

Mahugun India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2818/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 153ASection 40

…held in Balram Saha v/s. Commissioner of Income Tax (2011) 334 ITR 0383 (In the Culcutta High Court )/ Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Prem Chand Jain (1991) 189 ITR 0320 (in the Punjab and Haryana High Court/ AnantharamVeerasingharah and Co. v/s. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC)/ CIT v/s. Ram Sanchi Gian Chand ( 1972) 86 ITR 724 (P&H). 25. On perusal of assessment order, it is observed that the A.O. before making addition on account of unaccounted income on the basis of seized ledgers has treated such impugned receipts as "On money", "Extrapolated Sales", "Suppressed Receipts/Sales", "Unaccounted receipts/Sales" wi…

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 618/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…of the Act is a penal provision and the proceedings imposing penalty are quasi- criminal in nature. Reliance can be placed for this on Hon’ble Apex Court verdict in CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 and Anantharam Veerasingaiah & Co vs Commissioner Of Income 123 ITR 457, and further on CIT V/s. M Habibullah reported in 136 ITR 716 Allahabad. The same view was taken in the case of CIT V/s. Service Iron and Steel Rolling Mills reported in 178 43 ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 ITR 589 P&H, CIT V/s. Sohanlal Savindersingh Jagadhri reported in 178 ITR 628 P&H, Hotel And Allied Trades P.Ltd V/s. CIT reported in 221 ITR…

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 617/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…of the Act is a penal provision and the proceedings imposing penalty are quasi- criminal in nature. Reliance can be placed for this on Hon’ble Apex Court verdict in CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 and Anantharam Veerasingaiah & Co vs Commissioner Of Income 123 ITR 457, and further on CIT V/s. M Habibullah reported in 136 ITR 716 Allahabad. The same view was taken in the case of CIT V/s. Service Iron and Steel Rolling Mills reported in 178 43 ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 ITR 589 P&H, CIT V/s. Sohanlal Savindersingh Jagadhri reported in 178 ITR 628 P&H, Hotel And Allied Trades P.Ltd V/s. CIT reported in 221 ITR…

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 616/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…of the Act is a penal provision and the proceedings imposing penalty are quasi- criminal in nature. Reliance can be placed for this on Hon’ble Apex Court verdict in CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 and Anantharam Veerasingaiah & Co vs Commissioner Of Income 123 ITR 457, and further on CIT V/s. M Habibullah reported in 136 ITR 716 Allahabad. The same view was taken in the case of CIT V/s. Service Iron and Steel Rolling Mills reported in 178 43 ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 ITR 589 P&H, CIT V/s. Sohanlal Savindersingh Jagadhri reported in 178 ITR 628 P&H, Hotel And Allied Trades P.Ltd V/s. CIT reported in 221 ITR…

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 615/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…of the Act is a penal provision and the proceedings imposing penalty are quasi- criminal in nature. Reliance can be placed for this on Hon’ble Apex Court verdict in CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 and Anantharam Veerasingaiah & Co vs Commissioner Of Income 123 ITR 457, and further on CIT V/s. M Habibullah reported in 136 ITR 716 Allahabad. The same view was taken in the case of CIT V/s. Service Iron and Steel Rolling Mills reported in 178 43 ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 ITR 589 P&H, CIT V/s. Sohanlal Savindersingh Jagadhri reported in 178 ITR 628 P&H, Hotel And Allied Trades P.Ltd V/s. CIT reported in 221 ITR…

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 614/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…of the Act is a penal provision and the proceedings imposing penalty are quasi- criminal in nature. Reliance can be placed for this on Hon’ble Apex Court verdict in CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 and Anantharam Veerasingaiah & Co vs Commissioner Of Income 123 ITR 457, and further on CIT V/s. M Habibullah reported in 136 ITR 716 Allahabad. The same view was taken in the case of CIT V/s. Service Iron and Steel Rolling Mills reported in 178 43 ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 ITR 589 P&H, CIT V/s. Sohanlal Savindersingh Jagadhri reported in 178 ITR 628 P&H, Hotel And Allied Trades P.Ltd V/s. CIT reported in 221 ITR…

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 613/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…of the Act is a penal provision and the proceedings imposing penalty are quasi- criminal in nature. Reliance can be placed for this on Hon’ble Apex Court verdict in CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 and Anantharam Veerasingaiah & Co vs Commissioner Of Income 123 ITR 457, and further on CIT V/s. M Habibullah reported in 136 ITR 716 Allahabad. The same view was taken in the case of CIT V/s. Service Iron and Steel Rolling Mills reported in 178 43 ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 ITR 589 P&H, CIT V/s. Sohanlal Savindersingh Jagadhri reported in 178 ITR 628 P&H, Hotel And Allied Trades P.Ltd V/s. CIT reported in 221 ITR…

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 612/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…of the Act is a penal provision and the proceedings imposing penalty are quasi- criminal in nature. Reliance can be placed for this on Hon’ble Apex Court verdict in CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 and Anantharam Veerasingaiah & Co vs Commissioner Of Income 123 ITR 457, and further on CIT V/s. M Habibullah reported in 136 ITR 716 Allahabad. The same view was taken in the case of CIT V/s. Service Iron and Steel Rolling Mills reported in 178 43 ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 ITR 589 P&H, CIT V/s. Sohanlal Savindersingh Jagadhri reported in 178 ITR 628 P&H, Hotel And Allied Trades P.Ltd V/s. CIT reported in 221 ITR…

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 611/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…of the Act is a penal provision and the proceedings imposing penalty are quasi- criminal in nature. Reliance can be placed for this on Hon’ble Apex Court verdict in CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 and Anantharam Veerasingaiah & Co vs Commissioner Of Income 123 ITR 457, and further on CIT V/s. M Habibullah reported in 136 ITR 716 Allahabad. The same view was taken in the case of CIT V/s. Service Iron and Steel Rolling Mills reported in 178 43 ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 ITR 589 P&H, CIT V/s. Sohanlal Savindersingh Jagadhri reported in 178 ITR 628 P&H, Hotel And Allied Trades P.Ltd V/s. CIT reported in 221 ITR…

DCIT, Central Circle - 3, Coimbatore vs. Smt.Vanitha Mohan, Coimbatre

In the result, the appeal by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 498/CHNY/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.267/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. Shri D. Vijay Mohan, The Dcit, No.232, Tea Estates, Central Circle-3, Race Course Road, Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 018. [Pan: Aatpm 1202 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.268/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)

…e deleted. 18. Heard both the parties. Before adverting to the facts of the case, we first take note of the principle of telescoping which has since been judicially approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. Vs CIT (123 ITR 457). In the decided case, it was held that where the assessee offers any income on ad hoc basis, then such income is commonly described as intangible addition; but it is very much a part of assessee's real income as disclosed in his account books and has the same concrete existence. The Hon'ble Court held that the secret profits or undisclosed in…

DCIT, Central Circle - 3, Coimbatore vs. Shri D Vijay Mohan, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 497/CHNY/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.267/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. Shri D. Vijay Mohan, The Dcit, No.232, Tea Estates, Central Circle-3, Race Course Road, Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 018. [Pan: Aatpm 1202 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.268/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)

…e deleted. 18. Heard both the parties. Before adverting to the facts of the case, we first take note of the principle of telescoping which has since been judicially approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. Vs CIT (123 ITR 457). In the decided case, it was held that where the assessee offers any income on ad hoc basis, then such income is commonly described as intangible addition; but it is very much a part of assessee's real income as disclosed in his account books and has the same concrete existence. The Hon'ble Court held that the secret profits or undisclosed in…

Vanitha Mohan, Coimbatore vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 268/CHNY/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.267/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. Shri D. Vijay Mohan, The Dcit, No.232, Tea Estates, Central Circle-3, Race Course Road, Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 018. [Pan: Aatpm 1202 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.268/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)

…e deleted. 18. Heard both the parties. Before adverting to the facts of the case, we first take note of the principle of telescoping which has since been judicially approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. Vs CIT (123 ITR 457). In the decided case, it was held that where the assessee offers any income on ad hoc basis, then such income is commonly described as intangible addition; but it is very much a part of assessee's real income as disclosed in his account books and has the same concrete existence. The Hon'ble Court held that the secret profits or undisclosed in…

Vijay Mohan, Coimbaore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-(3)(I/C), Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 267/CHNY/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.267/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. Shri D. Vijay Mohan, The Dcit, No.232, Tea Estates, Central Circle-3, Race Course Road, Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 018. [Pan: Aatpm 1202 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.268/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)

…e deleted. 18. Heard both the parties. Before adverting to the facts of the case, we first take note of the principle of telescoping which has since been judicially approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. Vs CIT (123 ITR 457). In the decided case, it was held that where the assessee offers any income on ad hoc basis, then such income is commonly described as intangible addition; but it is very much a part of assessee's real income as disclosed in his account books and has the same concrete existence. The Hon'ble Court held that the secret profits or undisclosed in…

DCIT-CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed and

ITA 3508/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3448/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3447/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3446/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3445/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3444/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3459/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3432/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd. Ground Floor, Rubberwala House, Dr. A Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. बनाम / Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3508/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3505/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3504/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3549/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3503/Mum/2023

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain FCAFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…l before us. 6.2 Heard both the parties. Before adverting to the facts of the case, we first take note of the principle of telescoping which has since been judicially approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. Vs CIT (123 ITR 457). In the decided case, it was held that where the assessee offers any income on ad hoc basis, then such income is commonly described as intangible addition; but it is very much a part of assessee's real income as disclosed in his account books and has the same concrete existence. The Hon'ble Court held that the secret profits or undisclosed incom…