CIT v. Baroda Tin Works

221 ITR 661High Court1996#8307 most cited

What is CIT v. Baroda Tin Works authority for?

Fictions created by law, such as under sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, and 69C, cannot by themselves be extended to penalty proceedings to raise a presumption of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The assessment order findings are relevant evidence but not the sole foundation for guilt in penalty proceedings.

13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Baroda Tin Works · section 271(1)(c) · section 69 · penalty proceedings · concealment of income · inaccurate particulars · section 68 · section 69A · section 69B · section 69C · presumption of concealment

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

Issues it is cited on

furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomefurnishing inaccurate particularslevy of penaltysection 271(1)(c)section 69nfactotal income

Judgments citing CIT v. Baroda Tin Works

Diesh Kumar Goyal, Kota vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Kota

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

ITA 32/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 May 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68Section 69

…ld, yes Whether, therefore, order passed by Tribunal setting aside penalty proceedings was just and proper – Held, yes. 4.7 The assessee relies on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Baroda Tin Works [1996] 221 ITR 661(GUJ) wherein it has been held thatthe law is well settled that though the finding recorded in the assessment orders are relevant evidence to support the allegation of concealment, but these cannot be the foundation for holding the assessee guilty 12 ITA No. 32/JPR/2025 Sh. Dinesh Kumar Goyal, Kota of concealment. The fiction created u/ss 68, 69,…

Jamna Devi Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 7(2), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 540/JPR/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC’’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 540 & 541/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2008-09 cuke Smt. Jamna Devi Sharma The ITO Vs. Meena Ka Mohalla, Ward No. 2 Ward 7(2) Goner Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BXNPD 0140 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Rohan Sogani, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR lquokb…

Shiv Shraddha Developer, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle -3 Kalyan, Kalyan

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

ITA 944/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.944/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar ParidaFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…ty of concealment. The fiction created u/s.69C itself cannot be extended to penalty proceedings to raise the presumption about the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in view of judgment of Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Baroda Tin Works 221 ITR 661 (Guj). Relevant paragraphs are extracted below : “13. The fiction created under ss. 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C by itself cannot be extended to penalty proceedings to raise presumption about concealment of such income. This Court has categorically held in Vinaychand Harilal (supra) arising on account of additions being made the mandate of s. 69A an…

Rama Paper Mills Ltd, Bijnore vs. DCIT Central Circle-01, Kanpur

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

ITA 3802/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2014-15 Rama Paper Mills Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Najeebabad Road, Central Circle-01, Kiratpur, Kanpur. Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh. Pan: Aabcr5686D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.03.2019 Of The Cit(A), Moradabad, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:- “1. That The Ld. Cit (Appeal) Has Erred In Upholding The Penalty Of Rs.9,27,000/-,Imposed By The Ao., Invoking The Provisions Of Sec 271 (1) ( C) Of It Act 1961. 2. That The Ld. Cit (Appeal) Has Erred In Upholding The Penalty Of Rs. 9,27,000/-, Without Looking Into Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Relying On Irrelevant Judicial Pronouncements. 3. That The Impugned Appellate Order Is Arbitrary, Illegal, Bad In Law & In Violation Of Rudimentary Principles Of Contemporary Jurisprudence. 4. That The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Levying The Penalty Of Rs. 9,27,000/- U/S. 271(1) (C) Without Clearly Specifying The Charge I.E. Concealment Of Income "Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars. 5. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add/Alter Any/All Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal. 6. That The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Levying The Penalty Of Rs. 9,27,000/- U/S. 271(1) (C) Despite There Is No Concealment Of Income By The Appellant Nor Assessee Furnished In Inaccurate Particulars Of Income By The Appellant.”

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…clearly specifying the charge i.e., concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the impugned penalty may kindly be deleted. The ld. Counsel also placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) CIT vs. Baroda Tin Works, 221 ITR 661 (Guj); (ii) S.K. Kalyan vs. ITO, 327 ITR 477 (Mad); 2 (iii) CIT vs. MTNL, 79 CCH 726-Delhi High Court; & (iv) Pfizer vs. DCIT, 146 TTJ 385 (Mum). 4. The ld. Counsel further pressing into service, the proposition of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Baroda Tin Works (supra) and submitted that even though the addition u/s 6…

Ramilaben Kalubhai Kakadia, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(2)(3), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 216/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Ramilaben Kalubhai Kakadia, I.T.O., 62, Mira Nagar, Bhat Ni Wadi, Ward-3(2)(3), Vs. Varachha Road, Surat-395008. Surat. Pan No. Aippk 2934 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ot disproved by the lower authorities. To support his all the submissions the Ld. CIT(A) A.R for the assessee relied on the following decisions;  Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 656 Ker)’  Jalaram Oil Mill (253 ITR 192 Guj),  Baroda Tin Works (221 ITR 661 Guj). 7. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that all the pleas which have been raised by the ld. AR of the assessee before the Tribunal was considered by the ld. CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal of 6 Ramilaben Kalubhai Kakadia Vs ITO assessee. The assessee while filing return of income has furnished inaccurate particulars…

Ghanshyambhai Kanubhai Desai, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 645/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Sept 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…income of the assessee in order to attract the penalty provisions specified under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In holding so we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Baroda Tin works Box reported in 221 ITR 661 wherein it was held as under: Sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C are all part of the same scheme where certain amounts though not proved to be the income of the assessee of the previous year concerned are for the purpose of charging to tax are deemed to be so by creating legal fiction absolving the department from its initial duty to prove that a…

M/S Ajay Salt & Chemicals, Una vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(3), Veraval

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 296/RJT/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Jan 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.296/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007

For Appellant: Written Submission
Section 143(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…in order to attract the penalty provisions specified under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In holding so we find support and Asstt. Year 2006-07 7 guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Baroda Tin works Box reported in 221 ITR 661 wherein it was held as under: Sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C are all part of the same scheme where certain amounts though not proved to be the income of the assessee of the previous year concerned are for the purpose of charging to tax are deemed to be so by creating legal fiction absolving the department from its initial duty to prove that an…

Shri Bhaveshbhai N. Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2585/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ld. Cit (A) & Agreed To The Addition Made By The Ao On Account Of Stcg For Rs. 41,39,180.00. Accordingly The Same Was Confirmed By The Learned Cit (A).

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…n submitted various pronouncement of different Hon’ble Courts as detailed under: 1. Dilip N Shroff Vs. JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) 2. Ashok Patel Vs. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC) 3. National Textile v CIT 249 ITR 125 (Gujarat) 4. CIT vs Baroda Tin Works (1996) 221 ITR 661 (Gujarat) and various ITAT judgments 7. However the AO held that assessee agreed to offer tax only after the same was confronted to him during assessment proceedings. The AO also held that Page 2 of 8 Asstt. Year 2009-10 assessee did not press the issue at appellate stage which signifies that he has deliberately filed inaccurate particular in or…

Goyal Salt Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed with no

ITA 1354/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar , AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul, (JCIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 174Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1354/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 cuke M/s. Goyal Salt Pvt. Ltd. The ITO Vs. K-23, Malivya Marg, C-Scheme Ward- 6(2) Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAECG 0234D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.L. Poddar , Advocate jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Runi Paul…

Shri Varad Mehta, Bhopal vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 693/IND/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Shri Varad Mehta, Dcit 1(1), B-4/301, Paras City, Vs. Bhopal Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aflpm6733Q Revenue By Shri Rajeeb Jain, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Girish Agrawal,Ca Date Of Hearing 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2018 O R D E R

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…e provisions of Section 69 to 69D being deeming provisions cannot be extended to create another fiction for imposing penalty. 11. Reliance is placed on the following judicial precedents- a. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Baroda Tin Works - [1996] 221 ITR 661 - order dated 21.09.1995 - HEAD NOTE - Section 271(1)(c), read with section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income _ Assessment year 1971-72 - Whether Explanation to section 271(1)(c) inserted with effect from 1-4-1976 by which presumption of concealment of particulars of income is raised on account of additions havi…

The ITO, -3(2), Indore vs. Shri Vikramaditya Rana, Indore

ITA 119/IND/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2008-09 Acit- 3(2) Shri Vikramaditya Rana, Indore 5-E, Lakshya Regency, 15/2, Old बनाम/ Palasia, Indore Vs. (Revenue ) (Respondent) P.A. No. Abvpj8461L Appellant By Shri V.J. Voricha, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Tribhuvan Sachdeva Adv. Date Of Hearing: 10.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

…es Ltd., I.T.A.T. No.62 of 2013 (High Court of Calcutta (ii) CIT vs. Fortune Hotels and Estate (P) Ltd. I.T.A. No.1164 of 2012 (High court of Bombay (iii) Bhavya Anant Udeshi vs. ITO, ITANo.565/Hyd/2015 I.T.A.T., Hyderabad (iv) CIT vs. Baroda Tin Works (1996) 221 ITR 661 (Guj) Bikramaditya Rana (v) ITO vs. Jayesh Parmaar, ITANo.279/Ind/2013, I.T.A.T. Indore (vi) DCIT vs. K. Bhanji Vanmalidas & Sons, ITANo.743/Rjt/2010, I.T.A.T., Rajkot 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the relevant material on record placed before us. The Revenue’s sole grievance is against the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the p…

The ITO, Ward-6(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Radheshyam Fibres, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 527/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Parsoon Kabra, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)

…bres “i) The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty of Rs.20,63,- 193/- imposed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. ii) The Id. CIT(A) has further erred in Ijaw and on facts in relying on the decision in the case of C1T Vs. Eiarotia Tin works(221 ITR 661(GUJ) wherein a totally different set of facts was considered and was quite distinguishable with the facts of the Assessee's case. iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (A) ought to have upheld the order imposing of the penalty passed by the Assessing Officer. iv) It is, therefore, prayed that the orde…

Smt. Rita Chopra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6815/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. S. Reddy & Shri C. M. Garg

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…eated by law and the same is not acceptable to levy penalty so as to raise a presumption about concealment of income and to support this proposition, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Baroda Tinworks 221 ITR 661 (Guj). 6. Ld. DR supported the penalty order as well as order of the first appellate authority and submitted that a few cases are selected for scrutiny and where the claim made in the return appears to be ex facie bogus, then it would be treated as a case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and penalty proceedings would be…

CIT v. Baroda Tin Works (221 ITR 661) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax