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

Dhanraj Mills P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD)-II Cen RG-7, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3830/MUM/2009[1987-88]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2017AY 1987-88

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 68

…st reasonably point to the conclusion that the disputed amount represent the income and the assessee has consciously concealed the particulars of income or has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars as was held by Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs Anwar Ali 76 ITR 696. Proceedings can be initiated at any time as was held in Jyoti Prakash Mitter vs UOI 112 ITR 378 (Cal.). In AM Shah and Company vs. CIT 108 taxman 137 (Guj). It was held that concealment/inaccuracy must be considered up to final stage. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High court in the Shereton apparels vs ACIT 256 ITR 20 (Bom.) held that books of accou…

Nameeta V. Chhabria, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2764/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2764/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Smt. Nameeta V. Chhabria, Addl. Commissioner Of बनाम/ 301, Grand Canyon, Income Tax – 11(1), V. 87 Pali Hill, Mumbai. Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400 050. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Addpc2908F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Darshan GandhiFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…s in assessment proceedings are not conclusive if assessee furnished the particulars and declare the income and that assessee has consciously concealed the particulars of his income or has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. CIT vs ANWAR ALI (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC). Sir in the above circumstances I sincerely request that when I myself has declared the correct income and paid the tax thereon together with interest before your honour raised any question. I should not be penalised.” The A.O. rejected the contentions of the assessee as the income of management bonus of Rs.19,37,552/- was not disclosed in…

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages vs. Jt.Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed in the above terms, but in the circumstances, with

ITA/194/2004HC Delhi01 Aug 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271

…gives the Appellant a second shot at the same question with reference to Clauses 11 and 12 of the warehousing agreement entered into between the Appellant and POC. This was perhaps premised on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC), where it was held that the finding given in the assessment proceedings for determining or computing tax could not said to be conclusive as far as the penalty proceedings were concerned. ITA 194/2004 Page 9 of 1…

Smt. Kusum Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1514/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Kusum Gupta, Vs. Dcit, 21/40, Shakti Nagar, Central Circle-15, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aedpg4771M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv. & Shailesh Gupta, Ca Department By: Shri Shragun Gotru, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22 .02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 :03.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order Whereby The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Upheld The Penalty Of Rs.2,18,790 Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. This Action Of The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Been Questioned On Several Grounds.

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv. And Shailesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shragun Gotru, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…iation of penal proceedings in the assessment order has failed to record his satisfaction to justify the penal action. The penalty is thus not maintainable even on this ground alone. He placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Anwar Ali (1970) – 76 ITR 696(SC); ii) CIT vs. P. Rojes (2013) – 31 Taxmann. Com 253 (Mad.); iii) CIT vs. Mahinder Singh Khedla (2012) – 252 CTR 253 (Raj.); 3. The Learned Senior DR on the other hand placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. He submitted that the additions made on account of staying of the assessee’s son in U.K. for his study and travelling of a…

ACIT 15(3), Mumbai vs. Neelkanth Palm Realty, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3922/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Gyneshwar KataramFor Respondent: Shri S.R.Kirtane
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…and the findings recorded in the assessment proceedings may constitute evidence in the course of penalty proceedings, but they cannot be regarded as conclusive. This is the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the following cases: 1.CIT v. Anwar AIi [1970J 76 ITR 696; 2.CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons [1972J 83 ITR 369; and 3.Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT [1980J 123 ITR 4571 30. In the present case, the Tribunal in assessment proceedings has restored both the additions made by the Assessing Officer, but the question arises as to whether the said findings of the Tribunal in assessment proceedings must be…

New Holland Tractors (India) Private Limited

ITA/182/2002HC Delhi25 Sept 2014
Section 271(1)(c)

…proceedings cannot be considered as conclusive and final for the purpose of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As per opinion expressed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal I, and Anr. Vs. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC) such findings may constitute good evidence in the penalty proceedings but it does not follow that penalty for concealment under Section 271(1)(c) is mandatory whenever an addition or disallowance is made. The language of Section 271(1)(c) has undergone substantial changes since the pronouncement of the aforementioned judgment, but the…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt Meera Devi

ITA/997/2010HC Delhi23 Aug 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 153Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…tax Act are to be narrowly ITA Nos. 995,997/2010, 1217, 1219-1221, 1231 & 1233/2010 Page 6 construed and cannot be resorted for purposes of framing regular assessment. It was also emphasized - by relying upon the ruling in CIT Vs. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 and in CIT Vs. Jalaram Oil Mills (2002) 253 ITR 192, that the mere fact that explanation of an assessee, in assessment proceedings is rejected by itself is not a ground for levying penalty against him or her in connection with the assessment year. 11. Learned counsel on behalf of the Revenue argued that the approach of the Tribunal cannot…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt Meera Devi

ITA/995/2010HC Delhi23 Aug 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 153Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…tax Act are to be narrowly ITA Nos. 995,997/2010, 1217, 1219-1221, 1231 & 1233/2010 Page 6 construed and cannot be resorted for purposes of framing regular assessment. It was also emphasized - by relying upon the ruling in CIT Vs. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 and in CIT Vs. Jalaram Oil Mills (2002) 253 ITR 192, that the mere fact that explanation of an assessee, in assessment proceedings is rejected by itself is not a ground for levying penalty against him or her in connection with the assessment year. 11. Learned counsel on behalf of the Revenue argued that the approach of the Tribunal cannot…

Kanchenjunga Advertising Pvt Ltd

ITA/944/2011HC Delhi13 Jan 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 138Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…and penalty proceedings are different in nature and that the findings given in the assessment proceedings, though may constitute good evidence, cannot constitute conclusive evidence for the purposes of levying penalty. (please see CIT v. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696, CIT v. Khoday ITA No.944/2011 Page 11 of 19 Eswarsa and Sons ( 1970) 83 ITR 369, and Anantharam Veerasinghaiam & Co. v. CIT (1980)123 ITR 457). It is also well settled that for the purpose of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act,…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Cadbury India Ltd

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/1397/2008HC Delhi28 Mar 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 133ASection 194Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)Section 271C

…T (258 ITR 85) clearly held that penalty cannot be levied when income has been estimated. The identical ratio will be applicable that no penalty may be imposed when there is a difference of opinion. Even the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Anwar Ali (76 ITR 696) (SC) clearly held that finding in the assessment proceedings are not conclusive, therefore, the argument of the ld DR that quantum proceedings has become final, itself is not a good ground for imposition of penalty unless and until any material is brought on record by the revenue to the effect that the assessee deliberately defied the…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Harkaran Das Ved Pal

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 1005 / 2007HC Delhi12 Nov 2008
For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata BansalFor Respondent: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha
Section 132Section 143Section 158Section 260

…ication.‖ 12. Insofar as the second proposition with regard to assessment proceedings not being conclusive for the purposes of imposition of penalty is concerned, the learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on, inter alia, CIT v. Anwar Ali: 76 ITR 696 (SC); CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa and Sons: 83 ITR 369, 376 (SC) and CIT v. J.K. Synthetics Ltd.: 219 ITR 267 (Del). The relevant observations in the said decisions are as under:- ―CIT v. Anwar Ali: 76 ITR 696 (SC) ―It must be remembered that the proceedings under section 28 are of a penal nature and the burden is on the department to prove t…

Dilip N. Shroff vs. Joint Commnr. of Income Tax, Mumbai &Anr

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-002746-002746 - 2007Supreme Court18 May 2007
For Respondent: Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr

…RT OF INDIA Page 13 of 26 (a) Presumption of concealment where explanation found false \026 Several officers of the Department invited our attention to the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal v. Anwar Ali (76 ITR 696). It has been held by the Court that penalty for concealment of income cannot be imposed merely because the explanation given by an assessee is found to be false. While this decision was given in the context of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 28 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, it is not reasonably certain that it would not app…