Bajrang Oil Mills v. ITO

295 ITR 314High Court2007#8065 most cited

What is Bajrang Oil Mills v. ITO authority for?

A bona fide belief that an audit was not required under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, constitutes a reasonable cause for failure to comply with the provision, making the imposition of a penalty under Section 271B unjustifiable.

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Bajrang Oil Mills · ITO · 295 ITR 314 · Section 44AB · Section 271B · penalty · accounts audit · bona fide belief · reasonable cause · Rajasthan High Court

Also reported as

163 Taxmann 154
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 44absection 44prescribednfactotal incomebusiness

Judgments citing Bajrang Oil Mills v. ITO

Bellona Estate Developers Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Mumbai

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

ITA 6581/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Mayur KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Pande, Sr. DR
Section 139(9)Section 250Section 28Section 44Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 6581/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year :2022-23) Bellona Estate Developers Ltd., 2nd, Patel Estate Road, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai-400102. Appellant PAN: AADCB 0357 P v/s Respondent DCIT, CC-1(2)(1), 535, 5th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Assessee by :Shri Mayur Kisnadwala Revenue by : Ms. Monika Pande, Sr. DR Date of Hearing – 05/02/2025 Date of Order – 11/02/2025 ORDER PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal a…

Shri Radheyshyam Bisani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 288/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Radheyshyam Bisani, I.T.O., B. 1102, Shyam Sangini Apartment, Ward-1(2)(1), Vs. Gd Goenka Canal Road, Vesu, Surat. Surat. Old Address: 204, Paras Market, Ring Road, Surat. Pan No. Aaspb 9157 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 271BSection 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH (SMC), SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Physical hearing) Radheyshyam Bisani, I.T.O., B. 1102, Shyam Sangini Apartment, Ward-1(2)(1), Vs. GD Goenka Canal Road, Vesu, Surat. Surat. Old Address: 204, Paras Market, Ring Road, Surat. PAN No. AASPB 9157 F Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CA Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Institution of Appeal 26/04/2023 Date of hearing 25/05/2023 Date of pronouncement 25/05/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH,…

Jagdish Chandra Chhaparwal, Bhilwara vs. ITO, Ward-5, Bhilwara

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

ITA 3/JODH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradjagdish Chandra Chhaparwal, Vs Ito, House No.D-500/01, Nehru Ward-5, Road, Sanjay Colony, Bhilwara- Bhilwara, Rajasthan-311001 (Rajasthan) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahppc6573N Assessee By Shri Goutam Chand Baid, Ca Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/03/2023 Date Of 21/03/2023 Pronouncement

Section 147Section 271BSection 271FSection 44A

…e Ld. AO u/s 271F amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/-. While upholding the penalty so imposed for the name sack blind reliance has been placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Bajrang 1 | P a g e Oil Mills vs Income Tax Officer [2007] 295 ITR 314 (Raj), without appreciating the fact that in such case it was held that levy of penalty under section 271B for non- compliance with section 44AB for the assessment year 1994-95 could not be sustained as the assessee was under a bonafide belief that it did not have to get its accounts audited. Necessary direction to delete the penalty u/s 271F imp…

Benchmarrk Realty LLP, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

ITA 1396/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1396/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Benchmarrk Realty Llp, The Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Sr.No.17/19, Near Balaji V Temple, Kate Wasti, Punawale, S Pune – 411033. Pan: Aanfb 7064 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 09/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-6, Pune Dated 25.07.2019 Emanating From Order Of Assessing Officer Dated 22.03.2018 Under Section 271B Of The Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015- 16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No.1396/PUN/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Benchmarrk Realty LLP, The DCIT, Circle-8, Pune. Sr.No.17/19, Near Balaji V Temple, Kate Wasti, Punawale, s Pune – 411033. PAN: AANFB 7064 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Kishor B Phadke – AR Revenue by Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – DR Date of hearing 09/12/2022 Date of pronouncement 22/12/2022 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: Thi…

Gaurangbhai Chimanbhai Kapadia, Kheda vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Nadiad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1889/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2015-16 Gaurangbhai Chimanbhai Kapadia, Income Tax Officer, House No.836, Muni Ward No.8, Vs Ward-2, Bhavsar Wad, Nadiad, Kheda-387001 Nadiad Pan : Admpk 6603 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay R. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/08/2022 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr DR
Section 271BSection 44A

…any case can be said to have a bona fide belief that he was not required to get his accounts audited under Section 44AB of the Act on the basis of the proposition propounded by this Tribunal in the said cases. In the case of Bajrang Oil Bills Vs. ITO, [2007] 295 ITR 314 (Raj.), cited by the learned Counsel for the assessee, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court held that such bona fide belief constituted a reasonable cause for the failure of the assessee to comply with the provision of Section 44AB of the Act and the imposition of penalty under Section 271B of the Act was not justifiable. We accordingly cancel the pe…

Urban Improvement Trust, Near Cad Circle vs. National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 292/JPR/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Apr 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Soni (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehara (Addl.CIT) a
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 254Section 271BSection 273BSection 44ASection 9

…before him that Hon’ble Supreme Court order was passed after the ld. CIT(A) order. Further submitted that the penalty order should be revived again. 13. We are considering the view of The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Bajrang Oil Mills vs. ITO, 295 ITR 314, relevant paras as under:- “55. In terms of law laid down by the Supreme Court, the penalty could not be levied for every venial and technical breach of procedural laws. In this connection, it may be apposite to draw attention to decision of Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 where it was laid down that eve…

Urban Improvement Trust, Near Cad Circle vs. National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 291/JPR/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Apr 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Soni (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehara (Addl.CIT) a
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 254Section 271BSection 273BSection 44ASection 9

…before him that Hon’ble Supreme Court order was passed after the ld. CIT(A) order. Further submitted that the penalty order should be revived again. 13. We are considering the view of The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Bajrang Oil Mills vs. ITO, 295 ITR 314, relevant paras as under:- “55. In terms of law laid down by the Supreme Court, the penalty could not be levied for every venial and technical breach of procedural laws. In this connection, it may be apposite to draw attention to decision of Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 where it was laid down that eve…

Urban Improvement Trust, Near Cad Circle vs. National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/JPR/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Apr 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Soni (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehara (Addl.CIT) a
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 254Section 271BSection 273BSection 44ASection 9

…before him that Hon’ble Supreme Court order was passed after the ld. CIT(A) order. Further submitted that the penalty order should be revived again. 13. We are considering the view of The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Bajrang Oil Mills vs. ITO, 295 ITR 314, relevant paras as under:- “55. In terms of law laid down by the Supreme Court, the penalty could not be levied for every venial and technical breach of procedural laws. In this connection, it may be apposite to draw attention to decision of Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 where it was laid down that eve…

Urban Improvement Trust, Near Cad Circle vs. National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 289/JPR/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Apr 2022AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Soni (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehara (Addl.CIT) a
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 254Section 271BSection 273BSection 44ASection 9

…before him that Hon’ble Supreme Court order was passed after the ld. CIT(A) order. Further submitted that the penalty order should be revived again. 13. We are considering the view of The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Bajrang Oil Mills vs. ITO, 295 ITR 314, relevant paras as under:- “55. In terms of law laid down by the Supreme Court, the penalty could not be levied for every venial and technical breach of procedural laws. In this connection, it may be apposite to draw attention to decision of Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 where it was laid down that eve…

Urban Improvement Trust, Cad Circle vs. National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 288/JPR/2021[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Apr 2022AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Soni (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehara (Addl.CIT) a
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 254Section 271BSection 273BSection 44ASection 9

…before him that Hon’ble Supreme Court order was passed after the ld. CIT(A) order. Further submitted that the penalty order should be revived again. 13. We are considering the view of The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Bajrang Oil Mills vs. ITO, 295 ITR 314, relevant paras as under:- “55. In terms of law laid down by the Supreme Court, the penalty could not be levied for every venial and technical breach of procedural laws. In this connection, it may be apposite to draw attention to decision of Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 where it was laid down that eve…

Urban Improvement Trust, Cad Circle vs. National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 287/JPR/2021[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Apr 2022AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Soni (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehara (Addl.CIT) a
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 254Section 271BSection 273BSection 44ASection 9

…before him that Hon’ble Supreme Court order was passed after the ld. CIT(A) order. Further submitted that the penalty order should be revived again. 13. We are considering the view of The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Bajrang Oil Mills vs. ITO, 295 ITR 314, relevant paras as under:- “55. In terms of law laid down by the Supreme Court, the penalty could not be levied for every venial and technical breach of procedural laws. In this connection, it may be apposite to draw attention to decision of Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 where it was laid down that eve…

Ahamedsaib Babu, Vellore vs. ITO, Vellore

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 201/CHNY/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Manohar Doss,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.A.R.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT, D.R
Section 139(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

…tax report was filed along with the return of income, though the assessed turnover of assessee was said to be exceeded `40 lakhs. 3.1 At this stage, it is pertinent to go through the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Bajrang Oil Mills vs. ITO, 295 ITR 314, wherein it was held that Sub-section (9) of section 139 operates where a return has been submitted by the assessee and the Assessing Officer ITA Nos.200 & 201/Mds./16 :- 5 -: considers whether the return of income furnished by the assessee is defective. It requires the Assessing Officer where he finds that the return submitted by the assess…

Ahamedsaib Babu, Vellore vs. ITO, Vellore

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 200/CHNY/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Manohar Doss,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.A.R.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT, D.R
Section 139(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

…tax report was filed along with the return of income, though the assessed turnover of assessee was said to be exceeded `40 lakhs. 3.1 At this stage, it is pertinent to go through the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Bajrang Oil Mills vs. ITO, 295 ITR 314, wherein it was held that Sub-section (9) of section 139 operates where a return has been submitted by the assessee and the Assessing Officer ITA Nos.200 & 201/Mds./16 :- 5 -: considers whether the return of income furnished by the assessee is defective. It requires the Assessing Officer where he finds that the return submitted by the assess…

Periyasamy Ramesh Rajah, Chennai vs. ITO, Virudhunagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 837/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.837/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012. Periyasamy Ramesh Rajah, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.94, Ramamoorthy Road, Ward 1(3) Virudhunagar 626 001. Virudhunagar 626 001. [Pan Acwpr 9243A]

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Suresh Rao, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 44A

…ct Notes are for information of the Assessee for convenience to know whether there was profit or loss in shares dealings of particular Srips. Ld. Authorised Representative further relied on the followings judicial decisions. (i) Bajrang Oil Mills vs. ITO, 295 ITR 314 (Raj). (ii) Om Stock & Commodities (P) Ltd vs. DCIT, 150 ITD 645 (ITAT Mum) (iii) Kalyani Exports & Investments (P) Ltd/ Jannhavi Investments (P) Ltd/ Rajgad Trading (P) Ltd vs. DCIT, 78 IT 95 (ITAT, Pune) On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative 6. relied on the orders of the lower authorities. ITA No. 837/Mds/2017. :- 7 -: 7. We…

Bajrang Oil Mills v. ITO (295 ITR 314) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax