CIT v. E.V. Rajan

151 ITR 189High Court1985#6166 most cited

What is CIT v. E.V. Rajan authority for?

Penalty provisions under section 271(1)(c) are applicable even when the income assessment is made on the basis of an estimate.

19

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. E.V. Rajan · 151 ITR 189 · Section 271(1)(c) · penalty · assessment on estimate · concealment of income

Judgments citing CIT v. E.V. Rajan

Rajesh Kumar Baid, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 501/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 501, 494 & 499/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year :2015-16 (u/s 271(1)(c) 271B & 271A of the Act,1961) Shri Rajesh Kumar Baid B-10, Tulsidasji Ki Bagichi Janta Colony, Jaipur 302 004 (Raj) cuke Vs. The ITO Ward 5(2) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABZPB 7205 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Mrs. Mo

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271B

…money received but connotes the assessable figures arrived at after accounting for all the legitimate and exemptions (Naginchand v. CIT 6 ITR 534). Further reliance is placed on the following case laws. 1. CIT v. Gates 91 ITR 467 2. Cement Distributors v.CIT 60 ITR 586 4 SHRI RAJESH KUMAR BAID VS ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR 3. CIT v. Premier Breweries 244 ITR 598 4 CIT v. Vilasben 192 ITR 214 5. CIT v. Abdulgafur 199 ITR 827 & 6. CIT v. Vidhyagauri 238 ITR 91. 5.11 In the light of the foregoing discussion and the judicial decisions, penalty levied by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing particulars of inco…

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 214/CTK/2020[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…the assessee has concealed his income, warranting penalty under section 271(l)(c). In our opinion, in this regard, the Tribunal has erred in law in assuming that there are two views in the matter. One, as held in the abovereferred to CIT vs. E.V. Rajan [1985] 151 ITR 189 (Mad) ; Cement Distributors Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 586 (Mad) ; A.K. Bashu Sahib vs. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 736 (Mad) ; CIT (Addl.) vs. Bhoopathy (E.) [1978] 113 ITR 188 (Mad) ; Rathnam and Co. vs. IAC [1980] 124 ITR 376 (Mad) and CIT vs. Mir Mohamed Ali [1981] 128 ITR 215 (Mad) and another, as held in Bombay Hardware. Syndicate vs. CIT [1978…

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 213/CTK/2020[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…the assessee has concealed his income, warranting penalty under section 271(l)(c). In our opinion, in this regard, the Tribunal has erred in law in assuming that there are two views in the matter. One, as held in the abovereferred to CIT vs. E.V. Rajan [1985] 151 ITR 189 (Mad) ; Cement Distributors Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 586 (Mad) ; A.K. Bashu Sahib vs. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 736 (Mad) ; CIT (Addl.) vs. Bhoopathy (E.) [1978] 113 ITR 188 (Mad) ; Rathnam and Co. vs. IAC [1980] 124 ITR 376 (Mad) and CIT vs. Mir Mohamed Ali [1981] 128 ITR 215 (Mad) and another, as held in Bombay Hardware. Syndicate vs. CIT [1978…

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 212/CTK/2020[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…the assessee has concealed his income, warranting penalty under section 271(l)(c). In our opinion, in this regard, the Tribunal has erred in law in assuming that there are two views in the matter. One, as held in the abovereferred to CIT vs. E.V. Rajan [1985] 151 ITR 189 (Mad) ; Cement Distributors Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 586 (Mad) ; A.K. Bashu Sahib vs. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 736 (Mad) ; CIT (Addl.) vs. Bhoopathy (E.) [1978] 113 ITR 188 (Mad) ; Rathnam and Co. vs. IAC [1980] 124 ITR 376 (Mad) and CIT vs. Mir Mohamed Ali [1981] 128 ITR 215 (Mad) and another, as held in Bombay Hardware. Syndicate vs. CIT [1978…

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswaar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 211/CTK/2020[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…the assessee has concealed his income, warranting penalty under section 271(l)(c). In our opinion, in this regard, the Tribunal has erred in law in assuming that there are two views in the matter. One, as held in the abovereferred to CIT vs. E.V. Rajan [1985] 151 ITR 189 (Mad) ; Cement Distributors Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 586 (Mad) ; A.K. Bashu Sahib vs. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 736 (Mad) ; CIT (Addl.) vs. Bhoopathy (E.) [1978] 113 ITR 188 (Mad) ; Rathnam and Co. vs. IAC [1980] 124 ITR 376 (Mad) and CIT vs. Mir Mohamed Ali [1981] 128 ITR 215 (Mad) and another, as held in Bombay Hardware. Syndicate vs. CIT [1978…

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 210/CTK/2020[2004-05]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…the assessee has concealed his income, warranting penalty under section 271(l)(c). In our opinion, in this regard, the Tribunal has erred in law in assuming that there are two views in the matter. One, as held in the abovereferred to CIT vs. E.V. Rajan [1985] 151 ITR 189 (Mad) ; Cement Distributors Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 586 (Mad) ; A.K. Bashu Sahib vs. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 736 (Mad) ; CIT (Addl.) vs. Bhoopathy (E.) [1978] 113 ITR 188 (Mad) ; Rathnam and Co. vs. IAC [1980] 124 ITR 376 (Mad) and CIT vs. Mir Mohamed Ali [1981] 128 ITR 215 (Mad) and another, as held in Bombay Hardware. Syndicate vs. CIT [1978…

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 13/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…the assessee has concealed his income, warranting penalty under section 271(l)(c). In our opinion, in this regard, the Tribunal has erred in law in assuming that there are two views in the matter. One, as held in the abovereferred to CIT vs. E.V. Rajan [1985] 151 ITR 189 (Mad) ; Cement Distributors Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 586 (Mad) ; A.K. Bashu Sahib vs. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 736 (Mad) ; CIT (Addl.) vs. Bhoopathy (E.) [1978] 113 ITR 188 (Mad) ; Rathnam and Co. vs. IAC [1980] 124 ITR 376 (Mad) and CIT vs. Mir Mohamed Ali [1981] 128 ITR 215 (Mad) and another, as held in Bombay Hardware. Syndicate vs. CIT [1978…

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 12/CTK/2014[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…the assessee has concealed his income, warranting penalty under section 271(l)(c). In our opinion, in this regard, the Tribunal has erred in law in assuming that there are two views in the matter. One, as held in the abovereferred to CIT vs. E.V. Rajan [1985] 151 ITR 189 (Mad) ; Cement Distributors Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 586 (Mad) ; A.K. Bashu Sahib vs. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 736 (Mad) ; CIT (Addl.) vs. Bhoopathy (E.) [1978] 113 ITR 188 (Mad) ; Rathnam and Co. vs. IAC [1980] 124 ITR 376 (Mad) and CIT vs. Mir Mohamed Ali [1981] 128 ITR 215 (Mad) and another, as held in Bombay Hardware. Syndicate vs. CIT [1978…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 234/CTK/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…circumstances whenever the income was assessed on estimate rejecting the explanation of the assessee. Even on estimated additions, levy of penalty has been upheld in the case of CIT Vs. Md. Warasat Hussain (171 ITR 405) (Patna High Court), CIT Vs. E.V. Rajan (151 ITR 189)(Madras High Court), CIT Vs. Hoshiarpur Express Transport Co. Ltd. (162 ITR 393) (Punjab & Haryana High Court), CIT Vs. FazilkaDabwali Transport Co. (P.) 12 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 Ltd. (178 ITR 656) (Punjab & Haryana High Court), and A.M. Shah & Co. Vs. CIT (238 ITR 415) (Gujarat High Court). It was further held that even the feeble p…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 233/CTK/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…circumstances whenever the income was assessed on estimate rejecting the explanation of the assessee. Even on estimated additions, levy of penalty has been upheld in the case of CIT Vs. Md. Warasat Hussain (171 ITR 405) (Patna High Court), CIT Vs. E.V. Rajan (151 ITR 189)(Madras High Court), CIT Vs. Hoshiarpur Express Transport Co. Ltd. (162 ITR 393) (Punjab & Haryana High Court), CIT Vs. FazilkaDabwali Transport Co. (P.) 12 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 Ltd. (178 ITR 656) (Punjab & Haryana High Court), and A.M. Shah & Co. Vs. CIT (238 ITR 415) (Gujarat High Court). It was further held that even the feeble p…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 202/CTK/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…circumstances whenever the income was assessed on estimate rejecting the explanation of the assessee. Even on estimated additions, levy of penalty has been upheld in the case of CIT Vs. Md. Warasat Hussain (171 ITR 405) (Patna High Court), CIT Vs. E.V. Rajan (151 ITR 189)(Madras High Court), CIT Vs. Hoshiarpur Express Transport Co. Ltd. (162 ITR 393) (Punjab & Haryana High Court), CIT Vs. FazilkaDabwali Transport Co. (P.) 12 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 Ltd. (178 ITR 656) (Punjab & Haryana High Court), and A.M. Shah & Co. Vs. CIT (238 ITR 415) (Gujarat High Court). It was further held that even the feeble p…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 201/CTK/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…circumstances whenever the income was assessed on estimate rejecting the explanation of the assessee. Even on estimated additions, levy of penalty has been upheld in the case of CIT Vs. Md. Warasat Hussain (171 ITR 405) (Patna High Court), CIT Vs. E.V. Rajan (151 ITR 189)(Madras High Court), CIT Vs. Hoshiarpur Express Transport Co. Ltd. (162 ITR 393) (Punjab & Haryana High Court), CIT Vs. FazilkaDabwali Transport Co. (P.) 12 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 Ltd. (178 ITR 656) (Punjab & Haryana High Court), and A.M. Shah & Co. Vs. CIT (238 ITR 415) (Gujarat High Court). It was further held that even the feeble p…

S.M.Enterprisera, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 200/CTK/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…circumstances whenever the income was assessed on estimate rejecting the explanation of the assessee. Even on estimated additions, levy of penalty has been upheld in the case of CIT Vs. Md. Warasat Hussain (171 ITR 405) (Patna High Court), CIT Vs. E.V. Rajan (151 ITR 189)(Madras High Court), CIT Vs. Hoshiarpur Express Transport Co. Ltd. (162 ITR 393) (Punjab & Haryana High Court), CIT Vs. FazilkaDabwali Transport Co. (P.) 12 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 Ltd. (178 ITR 656) (Punjab & Haryana High Court), and A.M. Shah & Co. Vs. CIT (238 ITR 415) (Gujarat High Court). It was further held that even the feeble p…

S M Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 199/CTK/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…circumstances whenever the income was assessed on estimate rejecting the explanation of the assessee. Even on estimated additions, levy of penalty has been upheld in the case of CIT Vs. Md. Warasat Hussain (171 ITR 405) (Patna High Court), CIT Vs. E.V. Rajan (151 ITR 189)(Madras High Court), CIT Vs. Hoshiarpur Express Transport Co. Ltd. (162 ITR 393) (Punjab & Haryana High Court), CIT Vs. FazilkaDabwali Transport Co. (P.) 12 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 Ltd. (178 ITR 656) (Punjab & Haryana High Court), and A.M. Shah & Co. Vs. CIT (238 ITR 415) (Gujarat High Court). It was further held that even the feeble p…

Punjab Sind Dairy Products P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 33, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6247/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

For Appellant: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (AR)For Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…been given to the assessee. iv)The case cited at 114 1TR 586 (Mad) pertains to section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. On the other hand, the same high court of Madras in a recent judgement has held in the case of CIT Vs. E. V. Rajan (reported at 151 ITR 189) that penalty provisions under section 271(1)(c) are applicable even when assessment is made on basis of an estimate. v) Finally the case of Hari Gopai Singh Vs CIT 258 ITR 85 (P&H) is relating to an assessee engaged in the business of sale of sweets, who did not maintain any books of accounts and the Assessing Officer had estimated his income. T…

Punjab Sind Dairy Products P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 33, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6246/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

For Appellant: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (AR)For Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…been given to the assessee. iv)The case cited at 114 1TR 586 (Mad) pertains to section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. On the other hand, the same high court of Madras in a recent judgement has held in the case of CIT Vs. E. V. Rajan (reported at 151 ITR 189) that penalty provisions under section 271(1)(c) are applicable even when assessment is made on basis of an estimate. v) Finally the case of Hari Gopai Singh Vs CIT 258 ITR 85 (P&H) is relating to an assessee engaged in the business of sale of sweets, who did not maintain any books of accounts and the Assessing Officer had estimated his income. T…

DCIT 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Allied Instruments P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 759/MUM/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodthe Dcit,12(1)(1), R.No.223, 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Allied Instruments Pvt. Ltd., 30, Cd Govt. Industrial Estate, Kandivali (W), Mumbai 400 067 Pan: Aaaca 1032F .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ajai Pratap SinghFor Respondent: Shri Sanjiv M. Shah
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80HSection 80ISection 80l

…the case of ACIT Vs Mcleod Russell India Ltd. 101 ITD 39 Kolkata has held that even if the income is ultimately determined by applying method of estimate penalty can be imposed. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Cement Distributors Pvt. Ltd Vs CIT 60 ITR 586 has held that recording of bogus transaction in order to display income at a much lower figure amounts to deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of Sec. 271(1)(c). The Hon’ble MP High Court in the case of Addl. CIT Vs Smt. Chandrakanta 205 ITR 607 has held where the assessment is based on estimate penalty can…

DCIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vinamra Universal Traders P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 2018/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Dy. C.I.T. – 8(3)(2) M/S. Vinamra Universal Room No. 615, 6Th Floor Traders Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Jai Centre, 1St Floor Mumbai 400020 34, P. D’Mello Rd., Opp. Red Gate Mumbai 400009 Pan – Aaccv5090J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. S. Padmaja & Shri S.K. PodarFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Mehta & Shri Govind Javeri
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 94(7)

…or disallowance made by them u/s. 14A, though on the lower side were not willful and there is no falsehood in their accounts is not acceptable. The A.O. then relying upon the decision given in the case of CIT vs. Gates 91 1TR 467, Cement Distributors vs. CIT 60 ITR 586, CIT vs. Premier Breweries 244 ITR 598, CIT vs. Vilasben 192 ITR 214, CIT vs. Abdulgafur 199 ITR 827 and CIT vs. Vidhyagauri 238 ITR 91, levied penalty @ 100% of the tax sought to be evade so, at Rs. 1,90,84,194/-. 3.3 During the appellate proceedings, appellant have submitted as under: Applicability of provisions of section 94(7) was accepted by…

ACIT, CC-X, Kolkata vs. M/S Concast Steel & Power Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1487/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 15Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…Har Gopaldas (2000) 161 CTR (Ker) 74 : (2000) 243 ITR 220 (Ker) and CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 170 CTR (SC) 182 : (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC) relied on; India Sea Foods vs. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 124 (Ker), CIT vs. E.V. Rajan (1987) 61 CTR (Mad) 121 : (1985) 151 ITR 189 (Mad) and H.V. Venugopal Chettiar vs. CIT (1985) 153 ITR 376 (Mad) distinguished. Assessee could not be said to have concealed her income merely because she surrendered certain amount to buy peace with the Department as she could not adduce documentary evidence in support of her explanation regarding the source of capital or on the basis of anot…

CIT v. E.V. Rajan (151 ITR 189) — Cited in 19 Judgments | BharatTax