CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal

Precision Contaneurs Ltd (Formerly Known As Vasparr Fische Ltd ), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 9(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 1996-97

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh

…ctively, overlooking the fact that the assessee had not offered any credible explanation in respect of these additions and the assessee’s case was distinguishable on facts from those of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. [322 ITR 158 (SC)] & Atul Mohan Bindal [317 ITR 1 (SC) relied on by the CIT(A). 2. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 3. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary.” 4.3 In their application for filing additional grounds of appeal for both assessment yea…

Precision Contaneurs Ltd (Formerly Known As Vasparr Fische Ltd ), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 9(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 1996-97

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh

…ctively, overlooking the fact that the assessee had not offered any credible explanation in respect of these additions and the assessee’s case was distinguishable on facts from those of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. [322 ITR 158 (SC)] & Atul Mohan Bindal [317 ITR 1 (SC) relied on by the CIT(A). 2. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 3. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary.” 4.3 In their application for filing additional grounds of appeal for both assessment yea…

ACIT. Cir.-9(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Vasparr Fischer Ltd. (Now M/S. President Containers Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 1996-97

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh

…ctively, overlooking the fact that the assessee had not offered any credible explanation in respect of these additions and the assessee’s case was distinguishable on facts from those of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. [322 ITR 158 (SC)] & Atul Mohan Bindal [317 ITR 1 (SC) relied on by the CIT(A). 2. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 3. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary.” 4.3 In their application for filing additional grounds of appeal for both assessment yea…

Winsmile Infrastructure P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Winsmile Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Acit-8(3), 255, Sharma Estate, S. V. Road, Mumbai. Vs. Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai. Pan: Aaacw3470D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dr. K.Shivaram & Rahul Hakani (Ar’S) Revenue By : Ms. Mahua Sarkar (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 29.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2016 O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Jm: 1. This Appeal U/S. 253 Of Income Tax Act (,Act’) Is Directed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai Dated 21.02.2013 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2006-07. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee-Company Filed Its Return Of Income For Relevant Ay On 21.11.2009, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.95,530/-. Subsequently, The Action U/S 133A Of The Act Was Carried Out On 08.03.2010. & The Case Of Assessee Was Reopened. Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 20.10.2010. In Response To The Notice, The Assessee-Company Filed Revised Return Of Income On 12.08.2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 62,38,023/-. In The Revised Return Of Income, The Assessee Included Rs. 45 Lakhs Which The Assessee Has Write Off In Its Books Of Account In Ay 2006-07, Thus The Penalty Proceeding Was Initiated Against The Assessee & The Assessing Officer (Ao) Levied The Penalty Of Rs. 20,67,563/- Being Minimum Penalty On M/S Winsmile Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

…penalty unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. 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. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [(2008) 13. SC…

Sargam Foods P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT(A) 14, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

…er further. The AO was not convinced with the explanations and hence levied penalty of Rs.6,79,800/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same by following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Ltd (2014)(1 SCC 674). 5. I have gone through the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and I notice that the Ld CIT(A) has passed a reasoned order by placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Ltd (supra). Before me, the assessee has not filed any material to show that the order passed by Ld CIT(A) was not in accordance with the la…

Kumar V. Vasani, Mumbai vs. ITO 32(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2009-10

…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. 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 meri and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 4.2. In the l…

ITO 3(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Cyrus Engineers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 4552/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1997-98)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 4552/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1997-98) I.T.O.-3(1)(3), M/s Cyrus Engineers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Shapoorji Pallonji Centre, 41/44, Room No.666, M.K. Road, Minoo Desai Marg, Colaba, Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 005. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAACC 4608B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : : Shri Mohammed Rizwan अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Bihanlal ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 04/02/2016 Date of Hea…

Urmila Bhabera, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Sri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Mrs. Urmila Bhabhera, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of 901/902, Shanghvi Villa, S. Income Tax -20(3), Mumbai, 5Th V. Road, Andheri (W), Room No.506, Floor, Mumbai 400 058 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aajpb 6192K Appellant .. Respondent

…ty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act but also held that levy of penalty is not automatic if the assessee can furnish a bona-fide explanation. This was further clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision rendered in the case of 7 CIT Vs. Atul Mohan Bindal [317 ITR 1 (SC)] wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court discussed the judgment rendered in the case of Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills [254 CTR 1] and held that for applicability of section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, the conditions stated therein must exist. These conditions are that the assessee should have concealed the particulars or income or furnished inacc…

Camoron Finance and Investments, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 12(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

…penalty unless the case is strictly covered by the provision', the penalty provision cannot be invoked. 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. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of 'India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors as also the d…