Chempure v. ITO

Superflo Filter Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessement Centre, Delhi

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1588 & 1589/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12) National Faceless Superflo Filters Pvt. Assessment Centre, Ltd. Delhi B-5/103-104 Greenland बनाम/ Co-Op. Society, Vs. Shrinivas Bagarka Road, J. B. Nagar Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 059 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcs4955N (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri U. Singh, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 23.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 31.05.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Relation To Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2010-11 & 2011-12. 2

…@ 12.5% being profits embedded in these bogus purchases. It is by now consistent stand of the coordinate benches that in the cases of such additions on estimated basis, penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed. In the case of Chempure Vs ITO [(2010) 40 SOT 164 (Mum)], a coordinate bench, dealing with a materially identical addition in respect or bogus purchases wherein profit embedded therein was computed @25%, had come to the conclusion that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be imposed in such a case, and the view so taken by the coordinate bench has been consistently followed in a large number of…

Pritesh Jitendra Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD, 27(2) (5), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…the addition made by AO on the basis of estimation of income. We note that this Tribunal in such cases (wherein additions have been made on estimation basis) has held that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be imposed [(refer Chempure Vs. ITO (2010) 40 SOT 164) (Mum)], wherein a co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal dealing with a materially identical addition [in 3 A.Y. 2009-10 Pritesh Jitendra Mehta respect of bogus purchases wherein profit embedded therein was computed @25%], had come to the conclusion that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) be imposed and the view so taken by the coordinate bench has b…

ITO-9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Filtertechnics Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

…@ 12.5% being profits embedded in these bogus purchases. It is by now consistent stand of the coordinate benches that in the cases of such additions on estimated basis, penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed. In the case of Chempure Vs ITO [(2010) 40 SOT 164 (Mum)], a coordinate bench, dealing with a materially identical addition in respect or bogus purchases wherein profit embedded therein was computed @25%, had come to the conclusion that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be imposed in such a case, and the view so taken by the coordinate bench has been consistently followed in a large number of…

ACIT, Circle-9(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Filteration Engineers India Pvt Ltd, Mumnbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

…nder section 271(1)(c). ITA No. 1436 Mum 2019-M/s Filteration Engineers India Pvt. Ltd. 4. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the entire penalty was deleted. The ld. CIT(A) while deleting the penalty followed the decision of Tribunal in M/s Chempure vs. ITO (40 SOT 164), Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation vs. Dy.CIT [2017] 84 taxmann.com 51 (Mumbai Trib.). Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the revenue has filed the present appeal before us. 5. None appeared on behalf of assessee; the notice sent through registered post with acknowledgement due (RPAD) returned back un-served with the remark of post…

I.T.O.19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ramesh B. Doshi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharmaआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 5436/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04) बिधम/ Ito 19(3)(1) Ramesh B. Doshi R.No. 202, 2Nd Floor, Mtru A-1, Maniyar Bldg., Vs. Flat No. 34, 3Rd Floor, Mandir, Tardeo, Road, Mumbai. Near Film Centre, Tardeo, Mumbai. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aadpd3476E (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. अऩीराथी ओय से / Appellant By : Shri R. Bhoopathy, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Rajkumar Singh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing 20/12/2019 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23 /12 /2019

…pal a) Singh Vs CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 Honble Gujrat High Court in CIT Vs Subhash Trading Co b) 221 ITR 110 ITAT, Mumbai in ITO Vs Chhotalal Textiles (P) Ltd 95 c) TTJ 436 ITAT, Mumbai in Sonali A Shah Vs ITO ITA No d) 5720/M/2013 ITAT, Mumbai ITO Vs. Chempure 40 SOT 164 ( 2010). e) Hon'ble Courts have clearly held that penalty levied on estimated income does not comply with the settled principles of natural justice. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, I am of considered opinion that the additions on which penalty in dispute has been imposed is purely on estimation basis and th…

Midland Animal Nutrition P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3203/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Midland Animal Nutrition Ito Ward-2(1)(2), Mumbai- Pvt. Ltd. 6W, Merchant 400020. Vs. Chambers, 6Th Floor, No.41, New Marine Lines, Opp, Patkar Hall, Mumbai- 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2964Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri D Dharmesh Shah & Dhaval Shah Revenue By: Shri Suman Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 11.05.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2010-11 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Has Been Ordered To Be Upheld.

…158 (SC). 2. ACIT v. Manish Organics India Ltd. [2012] 17 taxman.com 25 (Ahmedabad). 3. Ruchi Developers v. ITO [ITA 1170/Ahd/2014, decision dated 05.06.2015]. 4. DCIT v. Rajeev G. Kalathil[[2014] 51 taxman.com 514 (Mumbai-Trib.) 5. Chempure v. ITO [2010] 40 SOT 164 (MUM) 6. HOE Leather Garments Ltd. V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax [2010] 39 SOT 210 (Hyderabad).” 5. In the similar circumstances, the Hon’ble ITAT has also given the finding in ITA. No.217/M/2015 title as ACIT Vs. Balaji Construction. The relevant finding has been given in para no. 7 below.:- “7. We have carefully examined the findings recor…

DCIT Cir 1, Kalyan vs. Maharashtra Steel Fabricators and Erectors, Thane

In the result this appeal by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

…e u/s 148. Penalty was imposed u/s 148. Penalty was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The ITAT deleted the same by holding that there was neither any concealment nor any inaccurate particulars had been filed. b. Chenipure v/s ITO (2010) 40 SOT 164 (MUM) - In this case, it was noticed that the assessee was recording bogus purchases. The AO asked the assessee to produce the 6 Maharashtra Steel Fabricators and Electors supplier parties which the assessee failed to do. The AO made addition of the amount of the bogus purchases. The CIT-(A) and the ITAT sustained the addition partly. Penalty u/s…

Ajanta Pharma Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2012-13

…ed representative pointed out that the said addition to the returned income even under normal circumstances does not invite penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, and for that matter, referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Chempure vs. ITO, [2010] 40 SOT 164 (Mumbai) dated 07.05.2010, which has been rendered under similar circumstances. 18. With regard to the denial of deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act, it was explained that in the course of search, the search party noted that the claim u/s 35(2AB) of the Act also comprised of expenditure on raw material consumed which was transferred to the head ‘res…

Aasia Exports, Mumbai vs. ACIT 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7541/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1998-99) Asia Exports बिधम/ Acit 11(1) Hinduja House, 171, Dr Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Rd Vs. A.B. Rd, Worli Mumbai Pin:400018 Mumbai Pin:400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafa6680N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Mr. J.P. Bairagra (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10.08.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27.09.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 17.10.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 1998-99 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Confirmed.

…te penalty u/s 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature.(Para 10).” Similar finding has been given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, 5. High Courts and Tribunal in the cases title as T. Ashok Paif Vs. CIT (292 ITR 11) SC, Chempure Vs. ITO (40 SOT 164), CIT Vs. Shivlal Desai & Sons 114 ITR 377, CIT Vs. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. 2010, 327 ITR 510/191 Taxman 179 (Delhi) Brij Mohan Vs. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 1 & CIT v/s Reliance Petro products(P)Ltd (2010) 322ITR. In view of the said law no ITA. No. 7541/M/2012 A.Y. 1998-99 penalty is levied because it cannot be said that there is a concealment of…

ACIT 33(1), Mumbai vs. Balaji Construction, Mumbai

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountatn Member

…ITR 158 (SC). 2. ACIT v. Manish Organics India Ltd. [2012] 17 taxman.com 25 (Ahmedabad). 3. Ruchi Developers v. ITO [ITA 1170/Ahd/2014, decision dated 05.06.2015]. 4. DCIT v. Rajeev G. Kalathil[[2014] 51 taxman.com 514 (Mumbai-Trib.) 5. Chempure v. ITO [2010] 40 SOT 164 (MUM) 6. HOE Leather Garments Ltd. V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax [2010] 39 SOT 210 (Hyderabad). 6. We have gone through the orders passed by the Lower Authorities. It is noted by us that Ld. CIT (A) examined all the 6 I.T.A. No.217/Mum/2015 facts and circumstances of this case as well as evidences brought on record by the AO as also by the as…

Bhagwati Steel Cast P.Ltd ( Formelry Bhatwati Steel Cast Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 9(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

…levied with respect to the adhoc addition so retained was not justified. Ld. AR placed on record various orders of the Tribunal, wherein for such adhoc addition/disallowance of purchases, penalty so levied was deleted by the Tribunal in the cases of Chempure, 40 SOT 164, S.H.A.M.K. Distributors Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.2337/Mum/2010, order dated 31-5-2012 (33 CCH 002 Mum Trib and Harnish B. Shah, ITA Nos.1314 to 1316/Mum/2008 (126 TTJ 283). We had also gone through all these decision relied on by ld. AR, which are on the same facts. Applying the proposition of law laid down in these cases, we do not find any merit for t…