CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal

9 SCC 589Supreme Court of India2009#466 most cited

What is CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal authority for?

The Supreme Court clarifies the scope of penalty under Section 271(1)(c), holding that for its applicability, conditions stated in the provision must strictly exist, and making an incorrect claim in law does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

200

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal · Section 271(1)(c) penalty · furnishing inaccurate particulars · concealment of income · incorrect claim in law · conditions for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) · Section 274 · levy of penalty · AO satisfaction penalty

Also reported as

317 ITR 1183 Taxmann 4441 GSTR 66

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 115JBSection 274Section 14ASection 276CSection 37(1)Section 10AASection 143(3)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 276csection 276furnishing inaccurate particularspenalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomesection 274concealment of incomepenalty u/s 271(1)(c)fees for technical servicessection 271(1)levy of penaltysection 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal

Dileshkumar Gordhanbhai Patel, Adipur vs. DCIT, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 100/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Dileshkumar Gordhanbhai Vs. The Dcit, Patel Gandhidham Circle, Venus Plaster Industries, Plot Gandhidham (Kutch) No.89, Ward-2B, Adipur (Kutch) Pan : Aaopp 4484 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11.10.2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” For Short] Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Levying Penalty Of Rs. 5,04,500/- Under Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” For Short] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Ground Raised By The Assessee Is As Under:- “The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Cit(A)] Erred On Facts As Also In Law In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.5,04,500/- Levied U/S 271Aab Of The Act On The Ad-Hoc Disclosure Of Rs.50,45,000/-. The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271Aab Of The Act Is Totally Unjustified On Facts As Also In Law, May Kindly Be Deleted.” 3. The Primary Argument Of The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Against The Levy Of Penalty Was That The Income Surrendered By The Assessee During

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271A

…order of the ld. CIT(A) pointing out that ld. CIT(A) had passed a speaking order analyzing the provisions of Section 271AAB of the Act and further derived authority from two decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, [2014] 1 SCC 674 and in the case of Sandeep Chandak Vs. PCIT, [2018] 93 taxmann.com 406 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that “where assessee in the course of search admits undisclosed income and manner in which such income has been derived, then the provisions of Section 271AAB would automatically attract.” He further contended that as per the prov…

Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar, 10, Sadgurunagar, Nasik 422007, Maharashtra, India vs. Income Tax Officer ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik/, Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk, Agra Road

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 364/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.364/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar, The Income Tax Officer, 10, Sadgurunagar, Vs Ward-2(1), Nashik. Nashik – 422007. Pan: Aavpa 6177 F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 31.01.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 17.01.2022 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Raising Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.1,33,020/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Riot Justified In Law. Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar [A]

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80CSection 80DSection 80T

…cord his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. The scope of Section 271(1)(c) has also been elaborately discussed by this Court in Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369 and CIT vs. Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 9 SCC 589. 11. The principle laid down by this Court, in our view, has been correctly followed by the Revenue and we find no illegality in the department initiating penalty proceedings in the instant case. We, therefore, fully agree with the view of the High Court. Hence, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.” Unquote. 9. In the case of the assessee Sati…

Satish Pandurang Pawar, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik/

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 363/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.363/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Satish Pandurang Pawar, The Income Tax Officer, 602, Royal Orchid, Near Indian Vs Ward-2(1), Nashik. Oil Petrol Pump, Katraj Bypass, Ambegaon, Pune – 411046. Pan: Abfpp 1207 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Yogesh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani, Irs – Dr Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 27.02.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 24.01.2022 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Raising Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.2,36,100/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Without Appreciating That Satish Pandurang Pawar [A]

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…cord his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. The scope of Section 271(1)(c) has also been elaborately discussed by this Court in Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369 and CIT vs. Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 9 SCC 589. 11. The principle laid down by this Court, in our view, has been correctly followed by the Revenue and we find no illegality in the department initiating penalty proceedings in the instant case. We, therefore, fully agree with the view of the High Court. Hence, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.” Unquote. 9. In the case of the assessee Sati…

Yuvraj Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-27(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 9233/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.9233/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Yubraj Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. Acit C-177, Fateh Nagar, Vs. Circle 27(2) Jail Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccn5302P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)Section 68

…law deserves to be made to pay an additional amount through penalty. In the assessee's case all these ingredients are there and therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 is very much attracted. 5.5 In a recent case of CIT vs. Atul Mohan Bindal 317 ITR 1 (SC), the Apex Court affirmed its decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (supra) and held that the penalty leviable u/s 271 (1 )(c) was neither criminal nor quasi criminal in nature. It was a civil liability and therefore, presence of mens rea was not essential. 5.6 Reference can be made to the case of CIT vs. Esco…

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

…mposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the return filed because that is the only document, where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income.-CIT vs. Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 225 CTR (SC) 248: (2009) 28 DTR (SC) 1: (2009) 9 SCC 589 followed. (Paras 7 & 8) Reading the words "inaccurate" and "particulars" in conjunction, they must mean the details supplied in the return, which are not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous. In this case, 7 ITA.NO.1402/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2012-13) M/s Fern Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., there is no finding that any details su…

DCIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai vs. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2704/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…liabilities - Wilful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as is the case in the matter of prosecution u/s 276C. Union of India Vs Dharmendra Textile Processors (Supreme Court) 306 ITR 277 Gukjag Industries Ltd. Vs CTO (SC) 317 ITR 1 Failure to disclose interest received u/s 244A - Penalty upheld - Assessee having exercised his statutory right of entitlement of interest u/s 244A ought to have shown the same as income in his return and the question of lack of intention and defence of oversight does not arise. Thirupathy Kumar Khemka Vs CIT (mad) ITR 122 Mentioning of the words…

DCIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai vs. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2703/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…liabilities - Wilful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as is the case in the matter of prosecution u/s 276C. Union of India Vs Dharmendra Textile Processors (Supreme Court) 306 ITR 277 Gukjag Industries Ltd. Vs CTO (SC) 317 ITR 1 Failure to disclose interest received u/s 244A - Penalty upheld - Assessee having exercised his statutory right of entitlement of interest u/s 244A ought to have shown the same as income in his return and the question of lack of intention and defence of oversight does not arise. Thirupathy Kumar Khemka Vs CIT (mad) ITR 122 Mentioning of the words…

Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2605/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…liabilities - Wilful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as is the case in the matter of prosecution u/s 276C. Union of India Vs Dharmendra Textile Processors (Supreme Court) 306 ITR 277 Gukjag Industries Ltd. Vs CTO (SC) 317 ITR 1 Failure to disclose interest received u/s 244A - Penalty upheld - Assessee having exercised his statutory right of entitlement of interest u/s 244A ought to have shown the same as income in his return and the question of lack of intention and defence of oversight does not arise. Thirupathy Kumar Khemka Vs CIT (mad) ITR 122 Mentioning of the words…

Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2604/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…liabilities - Wilful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as is the case in the matter of prosecution u/s 276C. Union of India Vs Dharmendra Textile Processors (Supreme Court) 306 ITR 277 Gukjag Industries Ltd. Vs CTO (SC) 317 ITR 1 Failure to disclose interest received u/s 244A - Penalty upheld - Assessee having exercised his statutory right of entitlement of interest u/s 244A ought to have shown the same as income in his return and the question of lack of intention and defence of oversight does not arise. Thirupathy Kumar Khemka Vs CIT (mad) ITR 122 Mentioning of the words…

Shri Sukhdev Singh Prop Karnail Singh Sukhdev Singh, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(4), Amritsar

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

ITA 107/ASR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ghansham Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 44

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 107/Asr/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Sukhdev Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Prop. Karnail Singh Sukhdev Ward -3(4), Amritsar Singh, Kot Baba Deep Singh, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar [PAN: AOLPS 4655Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Sh. Ghansham Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 13.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 22.09.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order da…

DCIT CC7 (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Anik Industries Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2267/MUM/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-7(2) Vs. M/S Anik Industries Ltd Room No. 655, 3Rd Floor, 610, Tulsiani Aayakar Bhavan, Chamber, Nariman Point Mk Road, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm2696K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt Shailja Rai.Dr Respondent By : Shri.Bhupendra Shah.Ar Date Of Hearing 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt Shailja Rai.DRFor Respondent: Shri.Bhupendra Shah.AR
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…rt in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) has observed that; ....By any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. In CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal (2009] 9 SCC 589, where this Court was considering the same provision, the Court observed that the Assessing Officer has to be satisfied that a person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. (emphasis supplied) The Hon'ble Apex Court has accordingly held in the aforesaid case that : " 9. We are not concerned i…

Shri Ajaybhai Ishwarlal Gogia, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (2) (5), Rajkot

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 176/RJT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Apr 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-D.R
Section 2(47)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C

…nce by the High Court does not tantamount to issue being debatable. He further held that the scope of s. 271(l)(c) has also been elaborately discussed by the Supreme Court in UOI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors 306 ITR 277 (SC) and CIT vs. Atul Mohan Bindal 317 ITR 1 (SC). The Explanations appended to section 271(l)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, entirely indicates the element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing the return. The object behind the enactment of section 271(l)(c) read with Explanation indicates that the said section has been enacted…

The ACIT Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Chandrakant G Patel, Ahmedabad

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 799/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

…ase (supra) to be not applicable, where section 11AC of the Central Excise Act is not applicable, especially since that was not even the stand of the Revenue in this case. The Supreme Court had further explained the decision in CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 317 ITR 1 / 183 Taxman 444 pointing out that Dharamendra Textile Processors' case (supra) has been explained in Rajasthan Spg. &Wvg. Mills' case (supra) and concluded in line with this decision that penalty under section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act could not be levied in every case of non-payment or short payment of duty and that penalty in respect of se…

Jumbo Techno Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 3 (3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6802/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm) I.T.A. No. 6802/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2010-11) Vs. Acit-3(3) Jumbo Techno Services Ltd. 171, C Wing, Mittal Court Aaykar Bhawan Nariman Point M.K.Road Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 Pan : Aabcj8752C (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Aakash Marthak Assessee By Department By Shri S.N.Kabra Date Of Hearing 01.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2022

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

…ether the conditions mentioned in section 271(l)(c) exist in the case. It is because Explanation 1(A) and 1(B), as the deeming provisions, create a legal fiction as to the grounds for penalty proceedings. Indeed, the Apex Court in CIT v. Atu Mohan Binda [2009]317 ITR 1 (SC) has explained the-scope of section 271(l)(c) thus: "Explanation 1, appended to section 27(1) provides that if that person fails to offer an explanation or the explanation offered by such person is found to be false, or the explanation offered by him is not substantiated, and he fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that all th…

Shorline Hotel P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT- CC-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 253/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

…ether the conditions mentioned in section 271(l)(c) exist in the case. It is because Explanation 1(A) and 1(B), as the deeming provisions, create a legal fiction as to the grounds for penalty proceedings. Indeed, the Apex Court in CIT v. Atu Mohan Binda [2009]317 ITR 1 (SC) has explained the-scope of section 271(l)(c) thus: "Explanation 1, appended to section 27(1) provides that if that person fails to offer an explanation or the explanation offered by such person is found to be false, or the explanation offered by him is not substantiated, and he fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that all th…

M/S Apace Realty, Thane vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Kalyan

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 607/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 271GSection 92Section 92BSection 92DSection 92D(3)

…ether the conditions mentioned in section 271(l)(c) exist in the case. It is because Explanation 1(A) and 1(B), as the deeming provisions, create a legal fiction as to the grounds for penalty proceedings. Indeed, the Apex Court in CIT v. Atu Mohan Binda [2009]317 ITR 1 (SC) has explained the-scope of section 271(l)(c) thus: "Explanation 1, appended to section 27(1) provides that if that person fails to offer an explanation or the explanation offered by such person is found to be false, or the explanation offered by him is not substantiated, and he fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide 12 Apace Realt…

Shri Rajendra P. Jain, Mumbai vs. Dycit, Central Cir.-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 190/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Laliet Kumar (Jm) I.T.A. Nos. 190 To 192/Mum/2021 (Assessment Years : 2012-13,2013-14 & 2014-15) Rajendra P.Jain Dcit,Cc-1(3) Vs. A-1605, Samarpan 905, 9Th Floor Exotica, Off.Dattapada Old Cgo Building Road, Behind Metro Mall, Prathishta Bhawan Borivali(E) M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 066 Mumbai-400 020 Pan : Abhpj0579P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…ether the conditions mentioned in section 271(l)(c) exist in the case. It is because Explanation 1(A) and 1(B), as the deeming provisions, create a legal fiction as to the grounds for penalty proceedings. Indeed, the Apex Court in CIT v. Atu Mohan Binda [2009]317 ITR 1 (SC) has explained the-scope of section 271(l)(c) thus: 8 Rajendra P.Jain "Explanation 1, appended to section 27(1) provides that if that person fails to offer an explanation or the explanation offered by such person is found to be false, or the explanation offered by him is not substantiated, and he fails to prove that such explanation is bona f…

Shri Gufran Ahmed Chaudhari, Valsad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Vapi Ward-1, Vapi

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

ITA 623/SRT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A. Gopalakrishnan,C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. AnupamaSingla– Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…s mentioned in section 271(1)(c) exist in the case. It is because Explanations 1(A) and 1(B), as the deeming provisions, create a legal fiction as to the grounds for penalty proceedings. Indeed, the Apex Court in CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 183 Taxman 444/317 ITR 1, has explained the scope of section 271(1)(c) thus: "[E]xplanation 1, appended to section 27(1) provides that if that person fails to offer an explanation or the explanation offered by such person is found to be false, or the explanation offered by him is not substantiated, and he fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that all the f…

Shri Prakash F.Singh, Vapi vs. The ITO, Ward-7, Vapi

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

ITA 618/SRT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A. Gopalakrishnan,C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. AnupamaSingla– Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…s mentioned in section 271(1)(c) exist in the case. It is because Explanations 1(A) and 1(B), as the deeming provisions, create a legal fiction as to the grounds for penalty proceedings. Indeed, the Apex Court in CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 183 Taxman 444/317 ITR 1, has explained the scope of section 271(1)(c) thus: "[E]xplanation 1, appended to section 27(1) provides that if that person fails to offer an explanation or the explanation offered by such person is found to be false, or the explanation offered by him is not substantiated, and he fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that all the f…

Peartree Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7225/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35DSection 36(1)(v)Section 40Section 40A(3)

…extile Processors & Others 306 ITR 277 wherein it was held that the penalty is a civil liability and mens rea is not required to be established by the revenue. Similarly, on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 317 ITR 1 wherein it was held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is neither criminal nor quasi criminal but a civil liability, albeit a strict liability. Such liability 3 Peartree Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. being civil in nature, mens rea is not essential. Explanation appended to section 271(1)(c) indicates element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or f…