CIT v. Anwar Ali

76 ITR 696Supreme Court of India1970#1227 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 366,339 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
Read the full judgment

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

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

…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…

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

…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…

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

…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…

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

…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…

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

…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…

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

…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…

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

…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…

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 546/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

…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). In the case of CIT & Anr. v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Karn), the Hon'ble court has summarized the legal position after taking note of various decisions. However, the AO merely alleged but failed to bring any material whatsoever by making independent inquiries to supp…

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 545/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

…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). In the case of CIT & Anr. v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Karn), the Hon'ble court has summarized the legal position after taking note of various decisions. However, the AO merely alleged but failed to bring any material whatsoever by making independent inquiries to supp…

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 544/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

…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). In the case of CIT & Anr. v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Karn), the Hon'ble court has summarized the legal position after taking note of various decisions. However, the AO merely alleged but failed to bring any material whatsoever by making independent inquiries to supp…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department vs. Bdr Builders and Developers Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed for the Asst Year

ITA 2452/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Sunita Verma, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 68Section 69A

…ion and the veracity of the repudiation. 17. For a complete understanding of the concept of „burden of proof‟ attention should be drawn to decisions delivered in the context of penalty proceeding under section 271 of the Income-tax Act CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 was decided by the Apex Court holding that, if there is no evidence on record except the explanation of the assessee, which explanation has been found to be false, it still does not follow that the receipt constitutes taxable income. This decision was followed by the Apex Court in Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 457 opining t…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhandewallan Extn., Delhi vs. Bdr Builders and Developers Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed for the Asst Year

ITA 2451/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Sunita Verma, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 68Section 69A

…ion and the veracity of the repudiation. 17. For a complete understanding of the concept of „burden of proof‟ attention should be drawn to decisions delivered in the context of penalty proceeding under section 271 of the Income-tax Act CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 was decided by the Apex Court holding that, if there is no evidence on record except the explanation of the assessee, which explanation has been found to be false, it still does not follow that the receipt constitutes taxable income. This decision was followed by the Apex Court in Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 457 opining t…

M/S Enria Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT. Central Circle - 3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1167/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 2Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(9)

…e ITA Nos.1166 & 1167/Chny/2023 :: 37 :: 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, t…

M/S Enrice Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1166/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 2Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(9)

…e ITA Nos.1166 & 1167/Chny/2023 :: 37 :: 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, t…

Pooja Upadhyay, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Devang Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…essment order. It is settled that assessment and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from each other. 7 Pooja Upadhyay vs. ITO, Ward 5(1), Jaipur 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. 2. Penalty so imposed being totally contrary to the provisions of law: 2.1 The order imposing penalty is qua…

The DCIT-1(3)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. M/S Fern Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1402/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 139Section 143Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

…s open to the ITO to come to a different conclusion, clearly equally it was open to the Tribunal to come to a different conclusion on this point." Copy of caselaw-Exhibit 9 These observations have been approved by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC). " Copy of caselaw - Exhibit 10 The Kerala High Court has earlier held in CIT vs. P.K. Narayanan (1999) 238 ITR 905 (Ker) that the addition being made and sustained in assessment and appellate proceedings would not toy itself justify penalty for concealment being levied. Likewise, the Gujarat High Court in National Textiles vs. CIT (2001) 249…

Shri Suresh Mal Lodha, 537-38, Mahima Trinity, New Sanganer Road, Swej Farm, Jaipur vs. ACIT Jaipur, Jaipur

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

ITA 968/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahenda Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…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). In the case of CIT & Anr. v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Karn), the Hon’ble court has summarized the legal position after taking note of various decisions. However, the AO merely alleged but failed to bring any material whatsoever by making independent inquires to suppo…

Arjun Singh, Kota vs. ACIT, Circle-I

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 106/JPR/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Dec 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…i Lal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 168 ITR 705 (SC) was no longer applicable. The Kerala High Court at page 244 has observed as under:- "The question of onus is of primary and added importance in legal acrimony, In CIT Vs. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696, the apex court laid down that, before a person could be visited with a penalty for concealment, etc., the Revenue must prove that the amount in question was the income of the assessee and the he had concealed it with a motive. It was further held that penalty could not be imposed merely because any explanation given by the assessee in regard to t…

Manoj Kumar Sharma, Jaipur vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 283/JPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…1Moreover, the law is well settled that penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from the assessment proceedings and there is no identity between the two. For a penalty AO must bring more material to establish positive concealment. Kindly refer 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…

Manoj Kumar Sharma, Jaipur vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 282/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…1Moreover, the law is well settled that penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from the assessment proceedings and there is no identity between the two. For a penalty AO must bring more material to establish positive concealment. Kindly refer 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…