CIT v. Anwar Ali

76 ITR 696Supreme Court of India1970#1241 most cited

What is CIT v. Anwar Ali authority for?

Penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from assessment proceedings. A penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not automatic and cannot be levied mechanically merely because an addition to income has been made.

92

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Anwar Ali · 76 ITR 696 · SC · Section 271(1)(c) penalty · penalty proceedings · assessment proceedings · penalty not automatic · mechanical levy · addition to income · reasonable cause

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 132Section 131(1A)Section 132ASection 147Section 269SS

Issues it is cited on

self occupied propertysection 275(1)section 275(1)(c)penalty under section 271dsection 275section 269tdeletion of penaltysection 271esurrender of incomesection 271(l)(c)section 142(2a)penalty under section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing CIT v. Anwar Ali

HARISH BANGA,HISAR vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the substantial ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 4893/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2018-19 (Physical Hearing) Harish Banga, Assessment Unit, 264, Bank Colony, Hisar, Vs. Faceless Assessment Unit Haryana – 125001. Income Tax Department, Pan – Abqpb 8845 F New Delhi-110001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri H.K. Batra, Ca & Shri Naman Chawla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12 .2025 O R D E R Per : Pawan Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit (A) Dated 08.07.2025 Vide Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri H.K. Batra, CA &For Respondent: Shri Virender Kumar Singh, SR. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 56Section 57

…Future Maker Life Care Pvt. Ltd., which was a common practice in multi-level marketing (MLM) businesses. 2.5 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the Appellant's reliance on judicial precedents, which are squarely applicable, including CIT v. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC), where expenses supported by 3 Harish Banga documentary evidence were held allowable unless disproved by the Revenue. 2.6 Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that even if the commission income is treated as "Income from Other Sources" u/s 56, the expenses Incurred wholly and exclusively for earning such income (le, commis…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 267/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

…asis of findings recorded by the AO in the assessment order. It is settled that assessment and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from each other. Kindly refer Durga Kamal Rice Mills v/s CIT (2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal.), CIT & Anr. v/s Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC), CIT v/s Ishtiaq Hussain (1998) 232 ITR 673 (All). The AO merely alleged but failed to bring any material whatsoever by making independent inquires to support the finding of concealment of income &\nfurnishing of inaccurate particulars.\n5. Penalty so imposed being totally contrary to the provisions of law:\n5.1 The order imposing penalty is…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 197/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (through V.C.) a
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

…basis of findings recorded by the AO in the assessment order. It is settled that assessment and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from each other. Kindly refer Durga Kamal Rice Mills v/s CIT (2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal.), CIT &Anr. v/s Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC), CIT v/s Ishtiaq Hussain (1998) 232 ITR 673 (All). The AO merely alleged but failed to bring any material whatsoever by making independent inquires to support the finding of concealment of income & furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 5. Penalty so imposed being totally contrary to the provisions of law: 5.1 The order imposing penalty is q…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 196/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

…of\nfindings recorded by the AO in the assessment order. It is settled that assessment\nand penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from each other. Kindly refer\nDurga Kamal Rice Mills v/s CIT (2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal.), CIT & Anr. v/s Anwar\nAli (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC), CIT v/s Ishtiaq Hussain (1998) 232 ITR 673 (All).\nThe AO merely alleged but failed to bring any material whatsoever by making\nindependent inquires to support the finding of concealment of income &\nfurnishing of inaccurate particulars.\n5. Penalty so imposed being totally contrary to the provisions of law:\n5.1\nThe order imposing penalty…

DUBBI GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD,DAUSA vs. ITO WD, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1283/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.C.)
Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 263Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80P

…ettled that penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from the assessment proceedings and the two cannot be merged or taken as one. For a penalty proceeding the AO must bring more material to establish positive concealment. Reliance is placed on Anwar Ali 76 ITR 696 (SC), Durga Kamal Rice Mills vs. CIT 265 ITR 25 (Cal.), CIT vs. Ishtiaq Hussain 232 ITR 673/148 CTR 367 (APP), T. Ashok Pai (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC) and CIT &Anr. v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Karn). 5.2 The proceedings in respect of assessment and penalty are different and distinct notwithstanding the precondition that later…

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 28 3 1 MUMBAI, VASHI vs. TRIVENI AND C J GROUP, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue is accordingly dismissed in the above terms

ITA 4032/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanito 28(3)(1) Vs. Triveni & C. J. R. No. 316, 3Rd Floor, Vashi Group, Railway Station, Vashi Shop No. 1, Bhoomi Navi Mumbai-400 703 Tower, Sector-4, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai-400 709 Pan/Gir No. Aafft1041B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ritika Agarwal, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm:

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…nable nexus 239 (SC) with available material and Triveni and C. J. Group circumstances, capriciously without regard for the material available 8 State of Orissa v. The mere fact that the material Maharaja Shri B.P. Singh placed by the assessee was Deo (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC) unreliable did not empower the AO to make an arbitrary order of enhancement. Power of best judgment, not arbitrary but to be based on relevant material 9 Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills The powers of best judgment, Ltd. v. CIT (1954) 26 ITR through wide, do not entitle the 775 (SC) AO to make assessment on pure guesswork without reference to any evi…

PRADEEP GARG, AJMER,AJMER vs. ITO 2(1) AJMER , AJMER

ITA 397/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(3)Section 64(1)(iv)

…ded by the AO in the assessment order. It is a settled principle of\nlaw that assessment and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from\neach other. Kindly refer Durga Kamal Rice Mills v/s CIT (2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal.),\nCIT & Anr. v/s Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC), CIT v/s Ishtiaq Hussain (1998)\n232 ITR 673 (All). The AO after reproducing the relevant portion of CIT(A) order\nfor quantum and discussing the provisions u/s 271(1)(c), merely alleged but failed\nto bring any material whatsoever by making independent inquires to support the\nfinding of concealment of income & furnishing of inaccurate parti…

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 80/RJT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2 Rajkot, 2Nd Floor, Amruta Estate, M.G. Rad, Rajkot-360 001 (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/03/2025 : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

…t from assessment proceedings. Therefore, if the assessee is able to offer bona-fide and satisfactory explanation about the additions/disallowances made, penalty proceedings cannot be initiated as was held by Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC). 10. Thus, in view of the above, the proposal to levy penalty on addition retained of Rs. 1,04,61,096/- is invalid and is strongly objected.” 13. However, the assessing officer rejected the above contention of the assessee and observed that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and thereby concealed the income. Therefore…

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 78/RJT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…rom assessment\nproceedings. Therefore, if the assessee is able to offer bona-fide and satisfactory\nexplanation about the additions/disallowances made, penalty proceedings cannot be\ninitiated as was held by Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696\n(SC).\n10. Thus, in view of the above, the proposal to levy penalty on addition retained of\nRs. 1,04,61,096/- is invalid and is strongly objected.”\n13.\nHowever, the assessing officer rejected the above contention of the\nassessee and observed that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of\nhis income and thereby concealed the income. Th…

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACTIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 77/RJT/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

…t from assessment proceedings. Therefore, if the assessee is able to offer bona-fide and satisfactory explanation about the additions/disallowances made, penalty proceedings cannot be initiated as was held by Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC). 10. Thus, in view of the above, the proposal to levy penalty on addition retained of Rs. 1,04,61,096/- is invalid and is strongly objected.” 13. However, the assessing officer rejected the above contention of the assessee and observed that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and thereby concealed the income. Therefore…

PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 76/RJT/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

…t from assessment proceedings. Therefore, if the assessee is able to offer bona-fide and satisfactory explanation about the additions/disallowances made, penalty proceedings cannot be initiated as was held by Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC). 10. Thus, in view of the above, the proposal to levy penalty on addition retained of Rs. 1,04,61,096/- is invalid and is strongly objected.” 13. However, the assessing officer rejected the above contention of the assessee and observed that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and thereby concealed the income. Therefo…

PRAKASHCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 66/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Years: 2013-14 , 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Vs. Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 273B

…me after addition has been upheld by Ld CIT(A). The assessee is a Heart Surgeon and busy in his profession and has given reason for not including the OP consultation charge in return of income. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC) has held that penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from assessment ITA Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 :- 5 -: proceedings. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not automatic and should not be levied mechanically only because an addition has been made to the income. As per Section 273B of the Act, penalty is not to be imposed in ca…

PRAKASHCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 64/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Years: 2013-14 , 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Vs. Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 273B

…me after addition has been upheld by Ld CIT(A). The assessee is a Heart Surgeon and busy in his profession and has given reason for not including the OP consultation charge in return of income. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC) has held that penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from assessment ITA Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 :- 5 -: proceedings. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not automatic and should not be levied mechanically only because an addition has been made to the income. As per Section 273B of the Act, penalty is not to be imposed in ca…

PRAKASHCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 61/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Years: 2013-14 , 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Vs. Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 273B

…me after addition has been upheld by Ld CIT(A). The assessee is a Heart Surgeon and busy in his profession and has given reason for not including the OP consultation charge in return of income. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC) has held that penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from assessment ITA Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 :- 5 -: proceedings. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not automatic and should not be levied mechanically only because an addition has been made to the income. As per Section 273B of the Act, penalty is not to be imposed in ca…

PRAKASH CHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 60/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Years: 2013-14 , 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Vs. Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 273B

…me after addition has been upheld by Ld CIT(A). The assessee is a Heart Surgeon and busy in his profession and has given reason for not including the OP consultation charge in return of income. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC) has held that penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from assessment ITA Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 :- 5 -: proceedings. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not automatic and should not be levied mechanically only because an addition has been made to the income. As per Section 273B of the Act, penalty is not to be imposed in ca…

MAN EQUIPMENT CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 37, MUMBAI

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

ITA 5144/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhrim/S. Man Equipment Co. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-37 Pvt. Ltd. बनाम Mumbai 69, Svp Road, Dongri, Mumbai-400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacm9716E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. B. Laxmi Kanth
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C

…r evidence would be necessary to show that it was the amount which represented his income and that it had been concealed in the return. While delivering Its judgment in the said case, the Hon'ble Madras High Court relied on the judicial precedents reported in 76 ITR 696 (SC) and 112 ITR 1048 (Bom). Thus, in the instant case, the appellant itself having declared additional income of Rs.1 crore in its return of income, no enquiry was required to be conducted or no rebuttal was required to be made by the A.0. in this regard. Moreover, it deserves to be noted that additional income of Rs.1 crore was admitted by Shri…

MELAKANDY PUTHALATH FAROOK,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1890/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1890/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Melekandy Puthalath Farook Acit बनाम/ Faraz No.9 Sbi Colony, Corporate Circle-2(1) Vs. Sastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-600 020. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapf-2644-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita (Addl.Cit) -Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita (Addl.CIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 274

…gs and penalty proceedings are two separate proceedings. The findings in the assessment proceedings cannot be considered as conclusive and final for the purpose of imposing penalty. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Anwar Ali, reported in [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC) observed that the findings in assessment proceedings may constitute evidence in the penalty proceedings, but it does not follow that penalty is mandatory whenever addition or disallowance is made. Further, the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Gem Granites reported in [2013] 86 CCH 160 (Madras), observed that merely because, the…

MITUL PRAVINCHANDRA MALANI, ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 33, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the penalty of ₹9,560/- imposed is hereby cancelled

ITA 931/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Subhendu Datta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mitul Pravinchandra Malani, Assistant Commissioner of Unit 1A, 1st Floor, 12, Income Tax, Circle 33, Ho Chi Minh Sarani, Vs Kolkata, Kolkata - 700071 10B, Middleton Row, (PAN: AJHPM7946B) Kolkata - 700071 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Anil Kochar, Advocate Respondent by : Subhendu Datta, CIT DR Monali Shaha Mukherjee, JCIT Date of Hearing : 25.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 17.10.2024 O R D E R PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT M…

NOVA PROMOTERS AND FINLEASE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

ITA 3173/DEL/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Ms.Madhumita Roynova Promoters & Vs. Ito, Ward 13(3) Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Ito Building, I.P. Estate 7, Kapil Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi – 34

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anshul
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…n 271(1)(c) have been amended w.e.f. 1-4-1964, where the word "deliberately" was omitted from the section and Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) was inserted. After these amendments, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696, no longer holds good. This position has been accepted by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Vishwakarma Industries v. CIT [1982] 135 ITR 652, and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose [1987] 165 ITR 14, CIT v. K.R. Sadayappan [1990] 185 ITR 49 and Addl. CIT v. Jeevan Lal Sah [1994] 205 ITR 244, though…

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

…Therefore, the relevant sections 269SS read with section 271D and 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…

Showing 1–20 of 92 · Page 1 of 5