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

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

self occupied property section 275(1)section 275(1)(c)penalty under section 271d section 275 section 269t deletion of penalty section 271e surrender of income section 271(l)(c)section 142(2a)penalty under section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing CIT v. Anwar Ali

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 281/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

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…

Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 223/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

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…

Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 222/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

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…

Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 221/JPR/2022[2016/17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022

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…

Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 220/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…

Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. PCIT (Circle), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 219/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…

Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 218/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

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…

Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 217/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

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…

Harish Jain, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 216/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

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…

Harish Jain, Jaipur vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 215/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…

Harish Jain, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 214/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

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…

Shri Surendra Singh Bhatia, Indore vs. The JCIT-3, Indore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 252/IND/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Advocate with Shri Gagan TiwariFor Respondent: 28.09.2022

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 271ASection 271DSection 274Section 41(1)

…n the basis of the findings given in the assessment proceedings, no penalty can be imposed. For such proposition, reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) CIT vs. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons (1972) 83 ITR 369 (SC) ii) CIT vs. Anwar All (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC) iii) Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT & Anr. (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) iv) Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. vs. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC) v) T. Ashok Pal vs. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC) ITA No.252/Ind/2017 (Shri Surendra Singh Bhatia vs. JCIT) Asst.Year.– 2008-09 - 9 - vi) ACIT vs. VIP Industries Ltd. (2009) 122 TTJ (Mum) 289 In view of the above fa…

Pushpanjali Hospitality Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 16(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 5296/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2009-10 Pushpanjali Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, B-49, Connught Place, Ward 16(3), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacm0006B

For Appellant: Shri Alok Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 41Section 41(1)

…7 are apparently not relevant as the facts differ from our facts. 6. That the A.O. in his penalty order quoted the following cases regarding "deliberate" and contending that the onus of burden has shifted from department to the assesse. (a) CIT Vs. Anwar Ali, 76 ITR 696(SC) (b) CIT Vs. Mussadilal Ram Bharose,165-ITR-14(SC) (C)Additional CIT Vs.Jeevan Lai sah,205-ITR-244(SC) It may be noted that these cases have no relevance to the facts and interpretation in our case as our penalty is levied with relation to writing back the credits u/s 41(1). 7, That it may also be noted that the A.O. during penalty Proceedings…

ACIT, Circle- 21(2), New Delhi vs. Rockwell Automation India Pvt. Ltd., Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 712/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Acit, Vs Rockwell Automation India Circle-21(2), Pvt. Ltd., 131, Functional New Delhi. Industrial Area, Patparganj, East Delhi, New Delhi-11091. Pan-Aaccr3791A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ravi Sharma, Adv. & Ms. Shruti & Ms. Saloni, Ar Respondent By Shri Toufel Tahir, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27.07.2022

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…settled legal position that the explanation offered in the penalty proceedings has to be considered separately and independently in the matrix of requirements of the penal provisions. As per opinion expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Anwar Ali, 76 ITR 696 findings in assessment order may constitute good evidence but it does not follow that penalty for concealment u/s 271(1)(c) is mandatory whenever an addition or disallowance is made. 4.3 It will be relevant here to examine the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) which is reproduced below: "271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, conceal…

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)

…to prove his innocence. This was held, considering the old provisions of section 28(1)(c) of Indian I.T. Act, 1922, by the hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gokuldas Harivallabhdas 34 ITR 98 which was approved by the apex court in the case of Anwar Ali 76 ITR 696 SC. It was also held by the apex court that penalty proceedings are independent proceedings and, therefore, findings recorded in assessment proceedings, though may be relevant, but would not be 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…

DCIT, Chandigarh vs. Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 102/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Jindal, CA &For Respondent: Smt.C. Chandrakanta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…of this section the following case laws are relevant: 1. B.A. Balasubramaniam& Bros. Co Vs CIT(116 Taxman 842. 236 ITR 977. 157 CTR 556] With the incorporation of the Explanation to section 271, the view which had been taken earlier in CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC) no longer held the field and it was for the assessee to discharge the onus as contemplated in the said Explanation. In view of the fact that in the instant case the onus had not been discharged, the High Court judgment called for no interference. The appeals were, accordingly dismissed. 2. Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [(20…

Vaibhav Raonka, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Bhubaneswar

ITA 193/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Shrichandra Mohan Garg, Judicial

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…decisions in support of his case as under: i) Meherjee Cassinath Holding Pvt Ltd vs ACIT, 155 DTR (Mum)143 ii) CIT vs SSA’s Emerald Meadows, 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC) iii) CIT vs Shree Bajrang Trading & Supply Co, 187 ITR 299 (Cal) iv) CIT vs Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC0 V) Madhushree Gupta vs Union of India & Anr, 317 ITR 107( Del) vi) Samapika jena vs ACIT, in ITA Nos.53 to 57/CTK/2019 order dated 8.1.2020. 5. On the other hand, ld Sr DR supported the orders of the ld CIT(A). 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the orders of the AO as well as the CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf…

Vaibhav Raonka, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Bhubaneswar

ITA 192/CTK/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Shrichandra Mohan Garg, Judicial

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…decisions in support of his case as under: i) Meherjee Cassinath Holding Pvt Ltd vs ACIT, 155 DTR (Mum)143 ii) CIT vs SSA’s Emerald Meadows, 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC) iii) CIT vs Shree Bajrang Trading & Supply Co, 187 ITR 299 (Cal) iv) CIT vs Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC0 V) Madhushree Gupta vs Union of India & Anr, 317 ITR 107( Del) vi) Samapika jena vs ACIT, in ITA Nos.53 to 57/CTK/2019 order dated 8.1.2020. 5. On the other hand, ld Sr DR supported the orders of the ld CIT(A). 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the orders of the AO as well as the CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf…

Vaibhav Raonka, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Bhubaneswar

ITA 191/CTK/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Shrichandra Mohan Garg, Judicial

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…decisions in support of his case as under: i) Meherjee Cassinath Holding Pvt Ltd vs ACIT, 155 DTR (Mum)143 ii) CIT vs SSA’s Emerald Meadows, 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC) iii) CIT vs Shree Bajrang Trading & Supply Co, 187 ITR 299 (Cal) iv) CIT vs Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC0 V) Madhushree Gupta vs Union of India & Anr, 317 ITR 107( Del) vi) Samapika jena vs ACIT, in ITA Nos.53 to 57/CTK/2019 order dated 8.1.2020. 5. On the other hand, ld Sr DR supported the orders of the ld CIT(A). 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the orders of the AO as well as the CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf…

Illies Engineering India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 109/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Michael Jerald, DR

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

…he 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. A reading of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696, 701 (SC) shows that while assessment proceedings may constitute good evidence in penalty proceedings, they are not conclusive. Whether a penalty can be imposed in a given case, the entirety of the circumstances must be taken into account. All will depend on the circumstances of a case. There cannot be any such inflexible rule. Mere omission from…