CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons 1972 CTR (SC) 295

83 ITR 369Supreme Court of India1972#1203 most cited

What is CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons 1972 CTR (SC) 295 authority for?

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied solely on the basis of findings in the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer must discharge the burden of proving concealment or inaccurate particulars with additional material.

94

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons · 83 ITR 369 · section 271(1)(c) · penalty levy · concealment of income · inaccurate particulars · assessment proceedings · burden of proof · additional material

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 132Section 270ASection 250Section 271AABSection 269STSection 271ASection 271DA

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomelevy of penaltyconcealment of incomefurnishing inaccurate particularssection 271section 271(1)section 271(1)(c)section 27undisclosed incomesection 132india

Judgments citing CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons 1972 CTR (SC) 295

Msn Laboratories Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Addl. CIT, Central Range-2, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 2172/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2164, 2165, 2171 & 2172/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22) M/S. Msn Laboratories (P) Ltd Vs. Additional Cit Hyderabad Central Range-2 Pan:Aadcm6283F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad, All Dated 08/10/2025 For The A.Ys 2018-19 To 2021-22 Respectively. Since, Identical Issues Have Been Raised By The Assessee In All These Four Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 153ASection 269Section 271DSection 274

…ontravention of the provisions of clause (b) of section 269ST. Consequently, the penalty U/s 271D cannot be levied. We, also refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Officer Vs Khoday Eswarsa and sons [1972] 83 ITR 369, where it was held that "Penalty proceedings being penal in character, the department must establish that the receipt of the amount in dispute constitutes income of the assessee. Apart from the falsity of the explanation given by the Assessee, the department must have before it before levying penalty cogent material or evidence from which it could…

Msn Laboratories Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Addl CIT, Central Range-2, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 2165/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2164, 2165, 2171 & 2172/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22) M/S. Msn Laboratories (P) Ltd Vs. Additional Cit Hyderabad Central Range-2 Pan:Aadcm6283F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad, All Dated 08/10/2025 For The A.Ys 2018-19 To 2021-22 Respectively. Since, Identical Issues Have Been Raised By The Assessee In All These Four Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 153ASection 269Section 271DSection 274

…ontravention of the provisions of clause (b) of section 269ST. Consequently, the penalty U/s 271D cannot be levied. We, also refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Officer Vs Khoday Eswarsa and sons [1972] 83 ITR 369, where it was held that "Penalty proceedings being penal in character, the department must establish that the receipt of the amount in dispute constitutes income of the assessee. Apart from the falsity of the explanation given by the Assessee, the department must have before it before levying penalty cogent material or evidence from which it could…

M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1999/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

…CIT [1973] 88 ITR 293 (P&H) III. CIT v J K Synthetics Ltd. [1996] 219 ITR 267 (Del) IV. CIT v Doris S. Luiz [1974] 96 ITR 646 (Ker) The Ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Khoday Eswarsa & Sons [1972] 83 ITR 369 (SC)wherein it was held that penalty cannot be levied solely on the basis of the reasons given in the original order of assessment. The Ld. AR on the basis of the above judicial precedents, submitted that even in penalty proceedings, the assessee is not barred from challenging the findings of the assessment order based on which the Assessing O…

M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1998/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

…CIT [1973] 88 ITR 293 (P&H) III. CIT v J K Synthetics Ltd. [1996] 219 ITR 267 (Del) IV. CIT v Doris S. Luiz [1974] 96 ITR 646 (Ker) The Ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Khoday Eswarsa & Sons [1972] 83 ITR 369 (SC)wherein it was held that penalty cannot be levied solely on the basis of the reasons given in the original order of assessment. The Ld. AR on the basis of the above judicial precedents, submitted that even in penalty proceedings, the assessee is not barred from challenging the findings of the assessment order based on which the Assessing O…

M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, Tirupur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1997/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

…CIT [1973] 88 ITR 293 (P&H) III. CIT v J K Synthetics Ltd. [1996] 219 ITR 267 (Del) IV. CIT v Doris S. Luiz [1974] 96 ITR 646 (Ker) The Ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Khoday Eswarsa & Sons [1972] 83 ITR 369 (SC)wherein it was held that penalty cannot be levied solely on the basis of the reasons given in the original order of assessment. The Ld. AR on the basis of the above judicial precedents, submitted that even in penalty proceedings, the assessee is not barred from challenging the findings of the assessment order based on which the Assessing O…

M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1996/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

…CIT [1973] 88 ITR 293 (P&H) III. CIT v J K Synthetics Ltd. [1996] 219 ITR 267 (Del) IV. CIT v Doris S. Luiz [1974] 96 ITR 646 (Ker) The Ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Khoday Eswarsa & Sons [1972] 83 ITR 369 (SC)wherein it was held that penalty cannot be levied solely on the basis of the reasons given in the original order of assessment. The Ld. AR on the basis of the above judicial precedents, submitted that even in penalty proceedings, the assessee is not barred from challenging the findings of the assessment order based on which the Assessing O…

Mohit Garg, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 16, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 2571/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2570 & 2571/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…roceedings in the respective assessment years, therefore, penalty should be upheld. It is a well settled law that assessment proceedings and penalty I.T.A.Nos.2570 & 2571/Del/2023 proceedings are distinct and independent. [Re. CIT vs. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons, 83 ITR 369 (SC) and CIT vs. Aretic Investment (P.) Ltd., 190 Taxman 157 (Delhi)]. Hence, penalty proceedings have to be adjudicated separately. Merely, for the reason that quantum addition has been upheld would not mean that levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is automatic. Taking into consideration entire facts of the case, without commenting on merit…

Mohit Garg, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 16, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 2570/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2570 & 2571/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…roceedings in the respective assessment years, therefore, penalty should be upheld. It is a well settled law that assessment proceedings and penalty I.T.A.Nos.2570 & 2571/Del/2023 proceedings are distinct and independent. [Re. CIT vs. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons, 83 ITR 369 (SC) and CIT vs. Aretic Investment (P.) Ltd., 190 Taxman 157 (Delhi)]. Hence, penalty proceedings have to be adjudicated separately. Merely, for the reason that quantum addition has been upheld would not mean that levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is automatic. Taking into consideration entire facts of the case, without commenting on merit…

Shri Khatu Shyam Builders, Jaipur vs. ACIT Central Circle 2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 486/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…other hand, the lower authorities in a mechanical manner levied penalty on the premise that when any disallowances sustained irrespective of the facts of the case penalty has to be levied. 2.22 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Khoday Eswarsa & Sons [1972] 83 ITR 369 (SC) held that “…From the above it is clear that penalty proceedings being penal in character, the department must establish that the receipt of the amount in dispute constitutes income of the assessee. Apart from the falsity of the explanation given by the assessee, the department must have before it before levying penalty cogent material or evid…

Mohit Garg, New Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 16, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purpose, in the terms aforesaid

ITA 2580/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.2579 & 2580/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2016-17 & 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Verma Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…ive 3 ITA Nos.2579 & 2580/DEL/2023 (A.Ys. 2016-17 &2017-18) assessment years, therefore, penalty should be upheld. It is a well settled law that assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are distinct and independent. [Re. CIT vs. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons, 83 ITR 369 (SC) and CIT vs. Aretic Investment (P.) Ltd., 190 Taxman 157 (Delhi)]. Hence, penalty proceedings have to be adjudicated separately. Merely, for the reason that quantum addition has been upheld would not mean that levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is automatic. Taking into consideration entire facts of the case, without commenting on merit…

Mohit Garg, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 16, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purpose, in the terms aforesaid

ITA 2579/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.2579 & 2580/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2016-17 & 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Verma Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…ive 3 ITA Nos.2579 & 2580/DEL/2023 (A.Ys. 2016-17 &2017-18) assessment years, therefore, penalty should be upheld. It is a well settled law that assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are distinct and independent. [Re. CIT vs. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons, 83 ITR 369 (SC) and CIT vs. Aretic Investment (P.) Ltd., 190 Taxman 157 (Delhi)]. Hence, penalty proceedings have to be adjudicated separately. Merely, for the reason that quantum addition has been upheld would not mean that levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is automatic. Taking into consideration entire facts of the case, without commenting on merit…

Vision Jewellers, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 530/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR JhlanhixkslkbZ]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 530/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2010-11 cuke M/s. Vision Jewellers The DCIT C/o R.K. Dhandia, 22, Moti Doongri Road, Vs. Circle-1 MootiDoongri Circle, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACFV 4559 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Rohan Sogani, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Reven…

Schindler India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7493/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.7492 /मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2004-05) आअसं.7493 /मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2005-06) M/S. Schindler India P. Ltd. E-401, Delphi, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076. Pan: Aaecs-1548-J ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range – 8(3), Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Sakshi Dande Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Mumbai [In Short ‘ The Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years 2004-05 & 2005-06, Respectively Confirming Penalty Levied U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act’]. Both The Impugned Orders Are Of Even Date I.E. 10/09/2014. Since, The Facts

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 271(1)(c)

…he Appellate Authorities, the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) 6 ITA NO.7493/MUM/2014 (A.Y.2005-06) of the Act must also succeed. Assessment proceedings and ;penalty proceedings are two separate independent proceedings [Re. CIT vs. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons, 83 ITR 369(SC)] 6. In the present case we find that the Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of T.P adjustment Rs.2.30 crores. A perusal of the T.P order dated 22/12/2006 reveals that TPO has accepted the TNMM as the most appropriate method adopted by the assessee. The TPO has also accepted the comparables…

Schindler India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7492/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.7492 /मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2004-05) आअसं.7493 /मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2005-06) M/S. Schindler India P. Ltd. E-401, Delphi, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076. Pan: Aaecs-1548-J ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range – 8(3), Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Sakshi Dande Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Mumbai [In Short ‘ The Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years 2004-05 & 2005-06, Respectively Confirming Penalty Levied U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act’]. Both The Impugned Orders Are Of Even Date I.E. 10/09/2014. Since, The Facts

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 271(1)(c)

…he Appellate Authorities, the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) 6 ITA NO.7493/MUM/2014 (A.Y.2005-06) of the Act must also succeed. Assessment proceedings and ;penalty proceedings are two separate independent proceedings [Re. CIT vs. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons, 83 ITR 369(SC)] 6. In the present case we find that the Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of T.P adjustment Rs.2.30 crores. A perusal of the T.P order dated 22/12/2006 reveals that TPO has accepted the TNMM as the most appropriate method adopted by the assessee. The TPO has also accepted the comparables…

Pramod N. Prajapati, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vapi

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 621/SRT/2018[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Dec 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Pramod N. Prajapati, Pr.Cit-1, B-1, Panchvati Apartment, Valsad. Vs. Tokarkhada, Silvasa, D&Nh-396230 Pan No. Accpp 2457 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Hasmukhbhai N. Prajapati, Pr.Cit-1, E 8, Gokul Vihar, Tokarkhada, Valsad. Vs. Silvasa, D&Nh-396230 Pan No. Accpp 2456 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 154Section 250Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…penalty without anything more as held in Jain Bros. Vs Union of India 77 ITR 107 (SC). 3. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in levying penalty without recording finding of concealment as held in CIT Vs. Anwar Ali 76 ITR 690 (SC), CIT vs/ Khoday Eswarsa 83 ITR 369 (SC) and Ananthraman Veerasinghaiah & Cop. Vs CIT 123 ITR 457 (SC). 4. Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that cash of Rs. 5,00,000/- is assessed as income of A.Y. 1998-1999 though said income was disclosed in V.D.I.S. 1997 being cash of A.Y. 1991-1992 to 1997-1998 and is therefore assessable as income of respective Assessment year and not as inc…

Shri Surendra Singh Bhatia, Indore vs. The JCIT-3, Indore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 252/IND/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Advocate with Shri Gagan TiwariFor Respondent: 28.09.2022
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 271ASection 271DSection 274Section 41(1)

…separate proceedings and therefore, merely on the basis of the findings given in the assessment proceedings, no penalty can be imposed. For such proposition, reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) CIT vs. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons (1972) 83 ITR 369 (SC) ii) CIT vs. Anwar All (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC) iii) Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT & Anr. (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) iv) Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. vs. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC) v) T. Ashok Pal vs. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC) ITA No.252/Ind/2017 (Shri Surendra Singh Bhatia vs. JCIT) Asst.Year.– 2008-09 - 9 - vi) ACIT vs. VIP Industries Ltd. (20…

Vijaybhai Dashrathbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-7(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2622/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Us: -

For Appellant: Shri A.C. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…is bad in law in as much as the penalty is levied on the basis of the finding in the assessment order and that the AO has not brought any additional material on record. Anantharam Veersinghaiah & Co. V/s. CIT 123 ITR 457 (SC) CIT V/s. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons 83 ITR 369 (SC) Dilip N. Shroff V/s. JCIT 291 ITR 519 [SC] 3. The penalty order is bad in law in as much as the AO has not discharged the burden to show that the assessee has in fact concealed the income or assessee has furnished which particulars of income which are inaccurate: National Textiles Corp. Vs CIT 249 ITR 125 CIT Vs Jalaram Oil Mills 253 ITR 192…

Shri Jai Hind Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-5(4), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 146/JPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…eedings, though may be relevant, but would not be conclusive. Mere rejection of explanation of assessee in assessment proceedings would not be sufficient for levy of penalty. The view taken in the case of Anwar Ali has been followed in Khoday Eswarsa and sons 83 ITR 369 SC, in Anantharam Veerasighaiah & co 123 ITR 457 SC, in T.Ashok Pal 292 ITR 11 SC and in Dilip N. Shroff 291 ITR 519. It is to be noted that the provisions of sec 271(1)(c) as considered by the apex court in the case of Anwar Ali (supra) were identical to the provisions under the old Act of 1922. In the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar & General Mills 1…

Af-Taab Investment Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst.C.I.T. Cir.2(1), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 6913/MUM/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6913/Mum/2012 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2002-03)

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 27lSection 73

…No doubt, the findings in the assessment proceedings would have significance in the penalty proceedings also but they are not decisive or determinative. This position has been established in several decisions which include CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons [1972] 83 ITR 369 (SC) and CIT v. J.K. Synthetic Ltd. [1996] 219 ITR 267 (Delhi). 4. With respect to the fact that the assessee had accepted the view taken by the Assessing Officer that V the loss due to trading in shares was in the nature of a speculative loss, the assessee contended that in the 15 I.T.A. No. 6913/Mum/2012 Af-taab Investment Company Ltd. penalty…

ITO, Sard- 1 (2) Thane, Thane vs. Mak Rubber Products, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 5416/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5416/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito Ward-1(2) Thane बिधम/ Mak Rubber Products Room No.24, B-Wing, 6Th 301/306, B-Wing, Giriya Co. Vs. Floor, Ashar It Park, Road Op. Hsg. Society, Mahatma No. 16Z, Wagle Ind. Estate, Phule Road, Naupada, Thane (W)-400604. Thane-400601. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabfm8605N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Jothilakshmi Nayak (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Bhadresh K. Doshi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 05.07.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -03, Nasik [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009-10 In Which The Penalty Levied By Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh K. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Jothilakshmi Nayak (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271

…sustainable, is not correct. Assessment and penalty proceedings are different. The fact that an explanation is disbelieved in assessment does not ipso facto justify penalty as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Khoday Eswara & Sons reported in 83 ITR 369 (SC). 3 A.Y.2009-10 6.1. Penalty proceedings are not automatic It is a settled precedent that assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are independent proceedings as held by following judgments. i. In T. Ashok Pai-,161 TAXMAN 340,292 ITR 11,210 CTR 259, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: The order imposing penalty is quasi-criminal in nat…