CIT v. K. Meenakshi Kutty

258 ITR 494High Court2002#6033 most cited

What is CIT v. K. Meenakshi Kutty authority for?

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied when income is arrived at on an estimate basis, even if the estimated income is higher than that disclosed by the assessee. This applies when the addition is based on estimation by the Assessing Officer.

19

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. K. Meenakshi Kutty · 258 ITR 494 · Section 271(1)(c) · penalty · addition on estimation basis · estimated income · disclosed income

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275Section 275ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 57

Judgments citing CIT v. K. Meenakshi Kutty

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. SANTOSH SHIVAJI LAD, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1522/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan M, CIT (DR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 57

…ld that penalty is not leviable when addition/disallowance is made on estimation basis. 7.14. In the below mentioned judgments it has been held that Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed on additions made on estimate basis. • CIT vs Smt K Meenakshi Kutty in 258 ITR 494 (Mad.) • CIT(A) vs Valmik bhai H Patel in 280 ITR 487 (Guj.) • CIT(A) vs Rajbans Singh in 276 ITR 351 (All.) • CIT vs Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel in 261 ITR 216 (Guj.) • CIT vs Shivnarayan Jamnalal &Co. in 232 ITR 311 (HP) • Navjivan Oil Mills vs CIT in 252 ITR 417 (Guj.) • CIT vs Ravail singh &Co. in 254 ITR 191 (P&H) • CIT vs Sangrur Vanaspati Mil…

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)

…% of the gross profit and consequently, it was held that there was no concealment of income and therefore penalty could not be levied. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. K. Meenakshi Kutty, reported in [2002] 258 ITR 494 (Madras), decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh, reported in [2002] 258 ITR 85 (Punjab & Haryana) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Valimkhhai H. Patel, reported in [2006] 280 ITR 487 (GUJ.). All of which was in respect of non-levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act when the income is…

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)

…% of the gross profit and consequently, it was held that there was no concealment of income and therefore penalty could not be levied. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. K. Meenakshi Kutty, reported in [2002] 258 ITR 494 (Madras), decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh, reported in [2002] 258 ITR 85 (Punjab & Haryana) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Valimkhhai H. Patel, reported in [2006] 280 ITR 487 (GUJ.). All of which was in respect of non-levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act when the income is…

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)

…% of the gross profit and consequently, it was held that there was no concealment of income and therefore penalty could not be levied. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. K. Meenakshi Kutty, reported in [2002] 258 ITR 494 (Madras), decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh, reported in [2002] 258 ITR 85 (Punjab & Haryana) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Valimkhhai H. Patel, reported in [2006] 280 ITR 487 (GUJ.). All of which was in respect of non-levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act when the income is…

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)

…% of the gross profit and consequently, it was held that there was no concealment of income and therefore penalty could not be levied. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. K. Meenakshi Kutty, reported in [2002] 258 ITR 494 (Madras), decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh, reported in [2002] 258 ITR 85 (Punjab & Haryana) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Valimkhhai H. Patel, reported in [2006] 280 ITR 487 (GUJ.). All of which was in respect of non-levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act when the income is…

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)

…% of the gross profit and consequently, it was held that there was no concealment of income and therefore penalty could not be levied. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. K. Meenakshi Kutty, reported in [2002] 258 ITR 494 (Madras), decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh, reported in [2002] 258 ITR 85 (Punjab & Haryana) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Valimkhhai H. Patel, reported in [2006] 280 ITR 487 (GUJ.). All of which was in respect of non-levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act when the income is…

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)

…% of the gross profit and consequently, it was held that there was no concealment of income and therefore penalty could not be levied. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. K. Meenakshi Kutty, reported in [2002] 258 ITR 494 (Madras), decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh, reported in [2002] 258 ITR 85 (Punjab & Haryana) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Valimkhhai H. Patel, reported in [2006] 280 ITR 487 (GUJ.). All of which was in respect of non-levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act when the income is…

DCIT CC-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RUBY MILLS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3958/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit Central Circle 8(4) Vs. M/S. Ruby Mills Ltd., Room No.658, 6Th Floor 11Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan Ruby House, J.K. Sawant M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Marg, Dadar (W) Mumbai – 400 028 Pan/Gir No.Aaact0220G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL), ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM DCIT Central Circle 8(4) Vs. M/s. Ruby Mills Ltd., Room No.658, 6th Floor 11th Floor Aayakar Bhavan Ruby House, J.K. Sawant M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Marg, Dadar (W) Mumbai – 400 028 PAN/GIR No.AAACT0220G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by Shri Sajit V. Nair Assessee by Ms. Hema Sharma Date of Hearing 18/01/2021 Date of Pronouncement 01/02/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 29/03/20…

SATISH SARAF,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), CENTRAL RANGE-4, MUMBAI

ITA 6567/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)

…relied by the Ld. CIT(A) is distinguishable, whereas assessee relies on following case law:- 21 I.T.A. No. 6567, 6605 & 6568/Mum/2017 Satish Saraf (i) Harigopal Singh vs. CIT reported in 125 Taxmann 252/258 ITR 85 (P &H). (ii) CIT vs. Smt K. Meenakshi Kutty 258 ITR 494(Mad). (Ill) CIT(A) vs. ValimkbhaiH. Patel 280 ITR 487(Guj). (iv) CIT(A) vs. Raj Bans Singh 276 ITR 351 (All). (v) CIT vs. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel 261 ITR 216(Guj) (vi) CIT vs. Shivnarayan Jamnalal & Co. 232 ITR 311 (MP). (vii) Navjivan Oil Mills Vs, CIT[252 ITR 417 (Guj)J (vlii) CIT Vs. Ravail Singh & Co. [254 ITR 191 (P&H)] (ix) CIT Vs. Sangrur…

SHRI VIVEK TALWAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CC - 46 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5003/MUM/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanshri Vivek Talwar Acit, Central Cricle-46, Room No. 659, 6Th Floor, 17-B, Ill Palazzo, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai-400006. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaapt3994Q Appellant Respondent Shri Vivek Talwar Acit, Central Cricle-46, Room No. 659, 6Th Floor, 17-B, Ill Palazzo, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai-400006. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaapt3994Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Mohammed Rizwan (DR)
Section 153ASection 23(1)(a)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…inaccurate particulars. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT [2002 258 ITR 85], CIT vs. S.Rahmat Khan Birbalkhan Badruddin [1999 240 ITR 778] and CIT vs. Smt. Meenakshi Kutty [(2002) 258 ITR 494]. 9. The ld. AR of the assessee on the disallowance of professional fees of Rs. 65,000/- submits that legal fees of Rs. 65,000/- was paid to Shri Ajay Majithai, Advocate, for representing the assessee before the Enforcement 7 ITA No. 5003 & 5004 Mum 2018-Shri Vivek Talwar. Directorate. The fee was paid through cheque. Before the Assessing Of…

S & P FOUNDATIONS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

ITA 382/CHNY/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 382/Chny/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. S&P Foundations Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Madley Road, T. Nagar, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 017. Central Circle Iv(2), [Pan:Aaics0224K] Chennai - 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2085/Chny/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. S&P Foundations Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle Iv(2), Madley Road, T. Nagar, Vs. Chennai - 34. Chennai 600 017. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate Shri J. Pavithran Kumar, Jcit Department By : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ii, Chennai, Dated 05.12.2012 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2007-08 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…essee could not furnish proper evidence and vouchers, the Assessing Officer estimated the expenses and disallowed 50% of the claim. From the above, it is clear that the addition was made purely based on estimate basis. In the case of CIT v. K. Meenakshi Kutty 258 ITR 494, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has categorically held that penalty cannot be levied where additions are made on estimate basis. In view of the direct decision on this issue, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act stands deleted. 8.3 With regard to levy of penalty of ₹.11 lakhs, based on the seized materials, the Assessing…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. S & P FOUNDATION P. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

ITA 2085/CHNY/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 382/Chny/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. S&P Foundations Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Madley Road, T. Nagar, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 017. Central Circle Iv(2), [Pan:Aaics0224K] Chennai - 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2085/Chny/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. S&P Foundations Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle Iv(2), Madley Road, T. Nagar, Vs. Chennai - 34. Chennai 600 017. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate Shri J. Pavithran Kumar, Jcit Department By : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ii, Chennai, Dated 05.12.2012 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2007-08 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…essee could not furnish proper evidence and vouchers, the Assessing Officer estimated the expenses and disallowed 50% of the claim. From the above, it is clear that the addition was made purely based on estimate basis. In the case of CIT v. K. Meenakshi Kutty 258 ITR 494, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has categorically held that penalty cannot be levied where additions are made on estimate basis. In view of the direct decision on this issue, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act stands deleted. 8.3 With regard to levy of penalty of ₹.11 lakhs, based on the seized materials, the Assessing…

HARSHA PRAVIN SHAH,THANE vs. ITO - WD - 4(2), THANE

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

ITA 5818/MUM/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2005-06 Harsha Pravin Shah, The Income Tax Officer, C-201, Shambhavnath Building, Vs. Ward-4(2), Thane Near Hain Temple, Virar (W), Thane, Maharashtra.

For Appellant: Shri N. M. Porwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Bhoopathi, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 285B

…fered for taxation in the range of 4 to 5% before the AO. Subsequently, the AO increased the estimation to a flat rate of 8% purely on estimation basis. In this regard, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Smt. K. Meenakshi Kutty 258 ITR 494 (Mad.), the ld. counsel submits that in a case where the income has been arrived at on estimate and the same is higher than the one disclosed by the assessee, penalty can be levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submits that the cash deposits of Rs.27,68,032/- is the unaccounted income/d…

S.GOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ITO, POLLACHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 417/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.417 & 1818/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri S. Gopal, The Income Tax Officer 14/2, Subbammal Layout, Vs. Ward I(2), Mahalingapuram, Pollachi 642 002. Pollachi. [Pan: Agcpg2417P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri J. Pavitran Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii/3, Coimbatore Dated 30.07.2013 & 28.12.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09 Passed Under Section 143(3) As Well As Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. First We Shall Take Quantum Appeal For Adjudication.

For Respondent: Shri J. Pavitran Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal against levy of penalty. By relying upon various case law including the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. K. Meenakshi Kutty 258 ITR 494, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that penalty cannot be levied where additions are made on estimate basis and prayed for deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below. 6.1 We have heard rival contentions, perused the materials available on re…

S.GOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ITO, POLLACHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 1818/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.417 & 1818/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri S. Gopal, The Income Tax Officer 14/2, Subbammal Layout, Vs. Ward I(2), Mahalingapuram, Pollachi 642 002. Pollachi. [Pan: Agcpg2417P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri J. Pavitran Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii/3, Coimbatore Dated 30.07.2013 & 28.12.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09 Passed Under Section 143(3) As Well As Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. First We Shall Take Quantum Appeal For Adjudication.

For Respondent: Shri J. Pavitran Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal against levy of penalty. By relying upon various case law including the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. K. Meenakshi Kutty 258 ITR 494, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that penalty cannot be levied where additions are made on estimate basis and prayed for deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below. 6.1 We have heard rival contentions, perused the materials available on re…

TRIBHOVANDAS BHIMJI ZAVERI (DELHI ) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 9, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 24/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm M/S. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri Vs. Dcit Cen Cir 9 (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd., R.No.806, Old Cgo Annex Ground Floor Building, M.K.Road, Somnath Apartments, Ram Mumbai – 400 020 Mandir R.D.Vile Parle (E) Mumbai – 400 057 Pan/Gir No.Aabct0165H Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 171(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)

…td. 7. Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mahendra Singh Khedla 71 DTR 189 held that penalty u/s.171(1)(c) cannot be levied on the addition made on estimate basis. Similar view has been taken by the Madras High Court in case of Smt.K. Meenakshi Kutty 258 ITR 494. Furthermore, applying proposition of law laid down in the judicial pronouncements cited by learned AR, it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of IT Act. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the penalty so imposed on the income estimated by the Tribunal. We direct accordingly. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed…

N.SETHUMADHAVAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2574/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri. G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2574/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-10 N. Sethumadhavan, The Income Tax Officer, No 594, Alagiri Samy Salai, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 14(1), K.K. Nagar, Chennai. Chennai - 600 078. [ Pan: Amrps 6175K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 271(1)(c)Section 44B

…71(1)(c) cannot be imposed by mere application of explanation, therefore, in the absence, of any evidence to conclude a positive findings that there was a concealment of income. We find the jurisdictional High Court in the case CIT vs Smt K. Meenakshi Kutty (258 ITR 494) held that the Return, Assessment both being on the estimation basis, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) was not attracted. Considering the apparent facts, material on record and judicial decisions, we are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer has levied penalty irrespective of the fact that the income has been estimated and there is no concealment o…

SRIRAMKRISHNA SECURITY SERVICES,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CC 35, MUMBAI

In the result, all the 22 appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 5792/MUM/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Ram Lal Negii.

Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)

…lment so far as the provisions of section 271(1)(c) is concerned. In support of this, ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to various decisions viz., (i) CIT vs. Aero Traders P Ltd [2010] 322 ITR 316 (Delhi); (ii) CIT vs. Smt. K. Meenakshi Kutty (258 ITR 494) (Mad); (iii) Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (258 ITR 85) (P&H) etc. On the other hand, the case of the Revenue is that though it is a case of estimations, the disclosure goes back to the search action. 9. On hearing both the parties, we find, the penalty orders in all these cases are of routine type. No assessment-year-specific-concealment was made out…

ACIT 18(1), MUMBAI vs. SUNIL BANKELAL GUPTA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7142/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh: (A.Y : 2009-10)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist
Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…of income, it cannot be said that assessee has concealed the particulars of income or filed inaccurate particulars of income. The CIT(A), in our view, has rightly relied on the order of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. K. Meenakshi Kutty, 258 ITR 494 (Mad) in which it has been held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act could be levied on account of estimate made by the Assessing Officer being higher than the estimate of income of assessee. Estimate, in our view, is an estimate. It cannot take place of actuality. No cogent material or evidence was brought to our knowledge which may prove th…

CIT v. K. Meenakshi Kutty (258 ITR 494) — Cited in 19 Judgments | BharatTax