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

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Range-8 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

ITA 6123/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta, AR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 50Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, DCIT-CC 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AABPJ 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, JCIT, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AA…

Mahesh Kumar Agrawal, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle 7 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 194/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehara (Addl.CIT) a
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…thing more on record that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income rather than merely mechanically imposing penalty just because some additions have been made and upheld. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharaman Veerasian Co. Vs. CIT, 123 ITR 457 held that the findings in the assessment proceedings cannot be regarded as conclusive for the purposes of the penalty proceedings. 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 addition. It is, therefore, necessar…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune vs. M/S. Mahalaxmi Realtors, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1407/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 271(1)(c)

…ncome or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is a certain position that assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct and as held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. Vs. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC) the findings in the assessment proceedings cannot be regarded as conclusive for the purpose of the penalty proceedings. It is also well settled that the criteria and yardstick for the purpose of imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) are different than those applied for making or confirming the addition. It is therefore, necessary to re-appreciate a…

DCIT CC7 (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Anik Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2267/MUM/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-7(2) Vs. M/S Anik Industries Ltd Room No. 655, 3Rd Floor, 610, Tulsiani Aayakar Bhavan, Chamber, Nariman Point Mk Road, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm2696K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt Shailja Rai.Dr Respondent By : Shri.Bhupendra Shah.Ar Date Of Hearing 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt Shailja Rai.DRFor Respondent: Shri.Bhupendra Shah.AR
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…d., Mumbai. IT 509, 515 (Ker) ; Hotel & Allied Trades (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 221 ITR 619, 646 (Ker). 6.2.27. It is also pertinent to refer here the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Anantharam Illies Engg.Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 457, 462 (SC), wherein it is held that the findings recorded in assessment order constitute good evidence in the penalty proceedings but those findings cannot be regarded as conclusive for the purpose of the penalty proceedings. In the case of CIT v. Anwar Ali 76 ITR 676, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the assessment proceedings and pe…

Mrs. Stella Suresh Srivastava, Mysuru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1) & Tps, Mysore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 647/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 234Section 69

…ITR 757) held that amount added to income in earlier years on estimate basis is to be treated as real income and can be considered for explaining investment in subsequent year. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. vs. CIT (123 ITR 457) observed at page 462 as under: "Now it can hardly be denied that when an 'intangible' addition is made to the book profits during an assessment proceeding, it is on the basis that the amount represented by that addition constitutes the undisclosed income of the assessee. That income, although commonly described as 'intangible, is as much a part…

Chimanbhai A. Kantesaria, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 474/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Chimanbhai A Kantesaria Income Tax Officer A-54, Trikam Nagar Society, Ward-3(3)(5), Aaykar Vs Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat- Bhavan, Majura Gate, 395006 Surat-395001 Pan : Abepp 7380 D Appellant / Assessee Respondent /Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…essee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. V.L. Balakrishnan (1981) 130 ITR 138 (Mad). Ld. AR for the assessee also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veersinghaiah & Co. Vs. CIT 123 ITR 457 (SC) and the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rawalpindi Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. 125 ITR 243 (All). 5. In alternative submission, Ld. AR of the assessee submits that in the show cause notice, the Assessing Officer has not struck out the inappropriate portion, wherein the penalty is levied on furnishing inaccurate part…

Income Tax Officer 8(3)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Vibgyor Texotech Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1484/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pavan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR/
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264ASection 40

…o the declared trading results is a question of fact which is to be decided based on circumstances in each case. 16. The benefit of telescoping was also considered by the Supreme Court in Anantharam Veerasingaiah & Co. vs. CIT (1980) 16 CTR (SC) 187 : (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC) approving Lagadapati Sunna Ramaiah vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 593 (AP) observed that: "There can be no escape from the proposition that the secret profits or undisclosed income of an assessee earned in an earlier assessment year may constitute a fund, even though concealed, from which the assessee may draw subsequently for meeting expenditure or…

M/S.Vibgyor Texotech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 487/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pavan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR/
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264ASection 40

…o the declared trading results is a question of fact which is to be decided based on circumstances in each case. 16. The benefit of telescoping was also considered by the Supreme Court in Anantharam Veerasingaiah & Co. vs. CIT (1980) 16 CTR (SC) 187 : (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC) approving Lagadapati Sunna Ramaiah vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 593 (AP) observed that: "There can be no escape from the proposition that the secret profits or undisclosed income of an assessee earned in an earlier assessment year may constitute a fund, even though concealed, from which the assessee may draw subsequently for meeting expenditure or…

The ACIT, Central Circle-1(2)., Ahmedabad vs. Pawan Satynarayan Jalan, Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 204/AHD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 158B

…account by the assessee which is pre-requisite for availing the benefit of telescoping. Therefore, the assessee’s plea for telescoping is also not acceptable. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme court in case of Anantharam Veerasinghaniah & Co. vs. CIT reported 123 ITR 457 also denied to provide the benefit of peak credit in absence of explanation from whom cash was received and paid. 4.9 Thus the AO in view of the above made the addition of Rs. 9 crores on account receipt of cash and 1.5 crores on account of payment in cash in the year under consideration. Similarly, an amount of 2 lacs and 2.82 crores was also a…

Pawan Satynarayan Jalan, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-1(2)., Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 182/AHD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 158B

…account by the assessee which is pre-requisite for availing the benefit of telescoping. Therefore, the assessee’s plea for telescoping is also not acceptable. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme court in case of Anantharam Veerasinghaniah & Co. vs. CIT reported 123 ITR 457 also denied to provide the benefit of peak credit in absence of explanation from whom cash was received and paid. 4.9 Thus the AO in view of the above made the addition of Rs. 9 crores on account receipt of cash and 1.5 crores on account of payment in cash in the year under consideration. Similarly, an amount of 2 lacs and 2.82 crores was also a…

Vijaybhai Dashrathbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-7(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2622/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Us: -

For Appellant: Shri A.C. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…d under Section 271(l)(c). 2. The penalty order is bad in law in as much as the penalty is levied on the basis of the finding in the assessment order and that the AO has not brought any additional material on record. Anantharam Veersinghaiah & Co. V/s. CIT 123 ITR 457 (SC) CIT V/s. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons 83 ITR 369 (SC) Dilip N. Shroff V/s. JCIT 291 ITR 519 [SC] 3. The penalty order is bad in law in as much as the AO has not discharged the burden to show that the assessee has in fact concealed the income or assessee has furnished which particulars of income which are inaccurate: National Textiles Corp. Vs CIT…

ACIT, Central Circle-04, New Delhi vs. Vishnu Kumar Garg, Faridabad

ITA 9449/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 127(1)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

…nsel for the Assessee relied upon the following Judgments :- 48 ITA.Nos.9147 to 9152 & 9448 & 9449/Del./2019 Shri Vishnu Kumar Garg, Faridabad. (i) CIT vs., Sonal Construction [2013] 359 ITR 532 (Del.) (ii) Anantharan Veerasinghaiah & Co. vs., CIT [1980] 123 ITR 457 (SC) 22. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand, heavily relied on the orders of the A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A). She submitted that when the seized documents clearly mention the interest @ 1.5% per month, therefore, in the absence of any evidence on record to show that assessee has not received the interest, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be upheld. 23. We…

ACIT, Central Circle-04, New Delhi vs. Vishnu Kumar Garg, Faridabad

ITA 9448/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 127(1)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

…nsel for the Assessee relied upon the following Judgments :- 48 ITA.Nos.9147 to 9152 & 9448 & 9449/Del./2019 Shri Vishnu Kumar Garg, Faridabad. (i) CIT vs., Sonal Construction [2013] 359 ITR 532 (Del.) (ii) Anantharan Veerasinghaiah & Co. vs., CIT [1980] 123 ITR 457 (SC) 22. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand, heavily relied on the orders of the A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A). She submitted that when the seized documents clearly mention the interest @ 1.5% per month, therefore, in the absence of any evidence on record to show that assessee has not received the interest, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be upheld. 23. We…

Vishnu Kumar Garg, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

ITA 9152/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 127(1)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

…nsel for the Assessee relied upon the following Judgments :- 48 ITA.Nos.9147 to 9152 & 9448 & 9449/Del./2019 Shri Vishnu Kumar Garg, Faridabad. (i) CIT vs., Sonal Construction [2013] 359 ITR 532 (Del.) (ii) Anantharan Veerasinghaiah & Co. vs., CIT [1980] 123 ITR 457 (SC) 22. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand, heavily relied on the orders of the A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A). She submitted that when the seized documents clearly mention the interest @ 1.5% per month, therefore, in the absence of any evidence on record to show that assessee has not received the interest, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be upheld. 23. We…

Vishnu Kumar Garg, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

ITA 9151/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 127(1)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

…nsel for the Assessee relied upon the following Judgments :- 48 ITA.Nos.9147 to 9152 & 9448 & 9449/Del./2019 Shri Vishnu Kumar Garg, Faridabad. (i) CIT vs., Sonal Construction [2013] 359 ITR 532 (Del.) (ii) Anantharan Veerasinghaiah & Co. vs., CIT [1980] 123 ITR 457 (SC) 22. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand, heavily relied on the orders of the A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A). She submitted that when the seized documents clearly mention the interest @ 1.5% per month, therefore, in the absence of any evidence on record to show that assessee has not received the interest, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be upheld. 23. We…

Vishnu Kumar Garg, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

ITA 9150/DEL/2019[2014-1]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022

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

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 127(1)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

…nsel for the Assessee relied upon the following Judgments :- 48 ITA.Nos.9147 to 9152 & 9448 & 9449/Del./2019 Shri Vishnu Kumar Garg, Faridabad. (i) CIT vs., Sonal Construction [2013] 359 ITR 532 (Del.) (ii) Anantharan Veerasinghaiah & Co. vs., CIT [1980] 123 ITR 457 (SC) 22. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand, heavily relied on the orders of the A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A). She submitted that when the seized documents clearly mention the interest @ 1.5% per month, therefore, in the absence of any evidence on record to show that assessee has not received the interest, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be upheld. 23. We…

Vishnu Kumar Garg, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

ITA 9149/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 127(1)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

…nsel for the Assessee relied upon the following Judgments :- 48 ITA.Nos.9147 to 9152 & 9448 & 9449/Del./2019 Shri Vishnu Kumar Garg, Faridabad. (i) CIT vs., Sonal Construction [2013] 359 ITR 532 (Del.) (ii) Anantharan Veerasinghaiah & Co. vs., CIT [1980] 123 ITR 457 (SC) 22. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand, heavily relied on the orders of the A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A). She submitted that when the seized documents clearly mention the interest @ 1.5% per month, therefore, in the absence of any evidence on record to show that assessee has not received the interest, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be upheld. 23. We…

Vishnu Kumar Garg, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

ITA 9148/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 127(1)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

…nsel for the Assessee relied upon the following Judgments :- 48 ITA.Nos.9147 to 9152 & 9448 & 9449/Del./2019 Shri Vishnu Kumar Garg, Faridabad. (i) CIT vs., Sonal Construction [2013] 359 ITR 532 (Del.) (ii) Anantharan Veerasinghaiah & Co. vs., CIT [1980] 123 ITR 457 (SC) 22. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand, heavily relied on the orders of the A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A). She submitted that when the seized documents clearly mention the interest @ 1.5% per month, therefore, in the absence of any evidence on record to show that assessee has not received the interest, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be upheld. 23. We…

Vishnu Kumar Garg, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

ITA 9147/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 127(1)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

…nsel for the Assessee relied upon the following Judgments :- 48 ITA.Nos.9147 to 9152 & 9448 & 9449/Del./2019 Shri Vishnu Kumar Garg, Faridabad. (i) CIT vs., Sonal Construction [2013] 359 ITR 532 (Del.) (ii) Anantharan Veerasinghaiah & Co. vs., CIT [1980] 123 ITR 457 (SC) 22. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand, heavily relied on the orders of the A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A). She submitted that when the seized documents clearly mention the interest @ 1.5% per month, therefore, in the absence of any evidence on record to show that assessee has not received the interest, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be upheld. 23. We…

Shri Jai Hind Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-5(4), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 146/JPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…e conclusive. Mere rejection of explanation of assessee in assessment proceedings would not be sufficient for levy of penalty. The view taken in the case of Anwar Ali has been followed in Khoday Eswarsa and sons 83 ITR 369 SC, in Anantharam Veerasighaiah & co 123 ITR 457 SC, in T.Ashok Pal 292 ITR 11 SC and in Dilip N. Shroff 291 ITR 519. It is to be noted that the provisions of sec 271(1)(c) as considered by the apex court in the case of Anwar Ali (supra) were identical to the provisions under the old Act of 1922. In the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar & General Mills 168 ITR 705 SC, it was held that penalty could no…