CIT v. Bengal Iron Galvanising Works

165 ITR 249High Court1987#8802 most cited

What is CIT v. Bengal Iron Galvanising Works authority for?

A penalty order can be rendered bad in law if the initiation of penalty proceedings is based on insufficient grounds. The case is cited to support the argument that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is legally untenable if the assessment order and show cause notice do not sufficiently establish concealment of income.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bengal Iron Galvanising Works · 165 ITR 249 · section 271(1)(c) · penalty proceedings · concealment of income · bad in law · assessment order · show cause notice · penalty order

Judgments citing CIT v. Bengal Iron Galvanising Works

Ashwin Liladhar Shah, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 933/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleashwin Liladhar Shah V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi C/O. D.C. Bothra & Co. Llp (Ca) (Formerly Known As D.C. Bothra & Co.) 297, Tardeo Road, Wile Mansion 1St Floor, Opp. Bank Of India Nana Chowk, Mumbai - 400007 Pan: Abeps5329R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 148Section 156Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…that purpose he relied on section 292B and relied on following case laws to sustain the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer: - i. CIT v. Jagat Novel Exhibitors (P.) Ltd., [2012] 18 taxmann.com 138 (Delhi). ii. CIT v. Bengal Iron galvanising Works (1987) 165 ITR 249 (Calcutta HC). iii. Ganesh Textiles v. CIT [253 ITR 216 (Gujarat HC)]. 7. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds in its appeal: - “1. That on facts and circumstances of the case penalty imposed and confirmed by Id. A.O. & Id. CIT (Appeal) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at R…

Ashwin Liladhar Shah, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 44/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ashwin Liladhar Shah National Faceless Appeal Centre C/O. D. C. Bothara & Co. Delhi Llp (Ca) (Formerly As D. C. Bothara & Co.) 297, Tardeo Road, Vs. Wille Mansion, 1St Floor, Opp. Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400 007

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: 02.03.2023
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271F

…ces. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bengal Iron Galvanising Works [1987] 165 ITR 249 (Cal). 5. The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A). 3 Ashwin Liladhar Shah vs. NFAC 6. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR for short) for the assessee contended that the assessee was on a belief that partnership firms were exempted from tax and that the assessee is said to have earned sub…

Mangi Lal Kandoi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 322/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 245D(4)Section 271A

…vs CIT (1982) 29 CTR (P&H) 243 (FB) 135 ITR 652 (P&H): TC 50R 98,. (iii) CIT vs Ravail Sincjh & Co. (2002) 173 CTR (P&H) 429. (iv) Laxmi Platers vs ACIT ITAT, Ahmedabad 'B' Third Member Bench (2001 73 TTJ (Ahd) 171. (v) CIT vs Bengal Galvanising Works (1987) 165 ITR 249 (Cal) (vi) Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) 9. Other favourable case laws – (i) National Textiles vs CIT 249 ITR 125 (Guj.) It is not enough for the purpose of penalty that the amount in question has been assessed as income (ii) S.P.Goel vs DCIT 82 ITD 85 (Bom) Mere entry on a loose sheet of paper does not indicate u…

Mangi Lal Kandoi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 321/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar ( Adv.)For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)a
Section 127Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…vs CIT (1982) 29 CTR (P&H) 243 (FB) 135 ITR 652 (P&H): TC 50R 98,. (iii) CIT vs Ravail Sincjh & Co. (2002) 173 CTR (P&H) 429. (iv) Laxmi Platers vs ACIT ITAT, Ahmedabad 'B' Third Member Bench (2001 73 TTJ (Ahd) 171. (v) CIT vs Bengal Galvanising Works (1987) 165 ITR 249 (Cal) (vi) Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) 4. Other favourable case laws – (i) National Textiles vs CIT 249 ITR 125 (Guj.) It is not enough for the purpose of penalty that the amount in question has been assessed as income (ii) S.P.Goel vs DCIT 82 ITD 85 (Bom) Mere entry on a loose sheet of paper does not indicate u…

Mangi Lal Kandoi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 320/JPR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar ( Adv.)For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)a
Section 127Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…vs CIT (1982) 29 CTR (P&H) 243 (FB) 135 ITR 652 (P&H): TC 50R 98,. (iii) CIT vs Ravail Sincjh & Co. (2002) 173 CTR (P&H) 429. (iv) Laxmi Platers vs ACIT ITAT, Ahmedabad 'B' Third Member Bench (2001 73 TTJ (Ahd) 171. (v) CIT vs Bengal Galvanising Works (1987) 165 ITR 249 (Cal) (vi) Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) 4. Other favourable case laws – (i) National Textiles vs CIT 249 ITR 125 (Guj.) It is not enough for the purpose of penalty that the amount in question has been assessed as income (ii) S.P.Goel vs DCIT 82 ITD 85 (Bom) Mere entry on a loose sheet of paper does not indicate u…

Mangi Lal Kandoi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 319/JPR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar ( Adv.)For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)a
Section 127Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…vs CIT (1982) 29 CTR (P&H) 243 (FB) 135 ITR 652 (P&H): TC 50R 98,. (iii) CIT vs Ravail Sincjh & Co. (2002) 173 CTR (P&H) 429. (iv) Laxmi Platers vs ACIT ITAT, Ahmedabad 'B' Third Member Bench (2001 73 TTJ (Ahd) 171. (v) CIT vs Bengal Galvanising Works (1987) 165 ITR 249 (Cal) (vi) Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) 4. Other favourable case laws – (i) National Textiles vs CIT 249 ITR 125 (Guj.) It is not enough for the purpose of penalty that the amount in question has been assessed as income (ii) S.P.Goel vs DCIT 82 ITD 85 (Bom) Mere entry on a loose sheet of paper does not indicate u…

ITO 14(1)3, Mumbai vs. Ashokkumar M Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4986/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…section are established, then the authority concerned "may direct" that the person committing the default within the meaning of the said section pay the penalty imposed and for this purpose reliance was place don CIT vs. Bengal Iron Galvanising Works - (1987) 165 ITR 249,252-53 (Cal) 17. As per the ld. A.R. although penalty has been regarded as an additional Sh.Bharatkumar Maneklal Parikh & 13 Sh.Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh tax in a certain sense and for certain purposes, it is not possible to hold that penalty proceedings are essentially a continuation of the proceedings relating to assessment where a return…

ITO 14(1)3, Mumbai vs. Bharatkumar M Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4985/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…section are established, then the authority concerned "may direct" that the person committing the default within the meaning of the said section pay the penalty imposed and for this purpose reliance was place don CIT vs. Bengal Iron Galvanising Works - (1987) 165 ITR 249,252-53 (Cal) 17. As per the ld. A.R. although penalty has been regarded as an additional Sh.Bharatkumar Maneklal Parikh & 13 Sh.Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh tax in a certain sense and for certain purposes, it is not possible to hold that penalty proceedings are essentially a continuation of the proceedings relating to assessment where a return…

Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3)

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3709/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…section are established, then the authority concerned "may direct" that the person committing the default within the meaning of the said section pay the penalty imposed and for this purpose reliance was place don CIT vs. Bengal Iron Galvanising Works - (1987) 165 ITR 249,252-53 (Cal) 17. As per the ld. A.R. although penalty has been regarded as an additional Sh.Bharatkumar Maneklal Parikh & 13 Sh.Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh tax in a certain sense and for certain purposes, it is not possible to hold that penalty proceedings are essentially a continuation of the proceedings relating to assessment where a return…

Bhartkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3)

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3708/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…section are established, then the authority concerned "may direct" that the person committing the default within the meaning of the said section pay the penalty imposed and for this purpose reliance was place don CIT vs. Bengal Iron Galvanising Works - (1987) 165 ITR 249,252-53 (Cal) 17. As per the ld. A.R. although penalty has been regarded as an additional Sh.Bharatkumar Maneklal Parikh & 13 Sh.Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh tax in a certain sense and for certain purposes, it is not possible to hold that penalty proceedings are essentially a continuation of the proceedings relating to assessment where a return…

Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 179/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…section are established, then the authority concerned "may direct" that the person committing the default within the meaning of the said section pay the penalty imposed and for this purpose reliance was place don CIT vs. Bengal Iron Galvanising Works - (1987) 165 ITR 249,252-53 (Cal) 17. As per the ld. A.R. although penalty has been regarded as an additional Sh.Bharatkumar Maneklal Parikh & 13 Sh.Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh tax in a certain sense and for certain purposes, it is not possible to hold that penalty proceedings are essentially a continuation of the proceedings relating to assessment where a return…

Bharatkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1250/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…section are established, then the authority concerned "may direct" that the person committing the default within the meaning of the said section pay the penalty imposed and for this purpose reliance was place don CIT vs. Bengal Iron Galvanising Works - (1987) 165 ITR 249,252-53 (Cal) 17. As per the ld. A.R. although penalty has been regarded as an additional Sh.Bharatkumar Maneklal Parikh & 13 Sh.Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh tax in a certain sense and for certain purposes, it is not possible to hold that penalty proceedings are essentially a continuation of the proceedings relating to assessment where a return…