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

Suresh Dutt Malhotra, Panipat vs. ACIT, Panipat

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2575/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Adv., Shri V. Rajkumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Sr. DR
Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(ii)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54BSection 54F(1)

…ndustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26, had laid down the position of law by holding that the Assessing Officer is not bound to levy penalty automatically simply because the quantum addition has been sustained. Also in case of CIT v. Khoday Eswara (83 ITR 369) (SC), incidentally reported in same ITR Volume, it is held that penalty cannot be levied solely on 6 Assessment year 2007-08 basis of reasons given in original order of assessment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has recently reiterated the law in case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 by holding in Para 62 that finding in assessment…

Sh. Jai Prakash Singhal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2646/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Sh. Jai Prakash Singhal, Vs. Acit, 83, Sunder Nagar, New Circle-20(1), New Delhi Delhi Pan :Aagpp8743D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Somil Aggarwal & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr.Dr

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

…gs 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 vs. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons 1972 CTR (SC) 295 : (1972) 83 ITR 369 (SC) and CIT vs. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (1996) 135 CTR (Del) 4 : (1996) 219 ITR 267 (Del). 5. With respect to the fact that the assessee had accepted the view taken by the AO that the loss due to trading in shares was in the nature of a speculative loss, the assessee contended that in the penalty proceedings, it can take up the plea that the claim m…

DCIT, Cir-3(2), Port Blair vs. Andaman & Nicobar State Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Port Blair

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 576/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13 Dcit, Circle-3(2), Mb- V/S. Andaman & Nicobar State 210, Shaidpur, Port Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Blair-74416 Ma Road, Phoenix Bay, Port Blair-744101 [Pan No.Aaajt 1043 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurbh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 15-11-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 30-11-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 Kolkata’S Order Dated 09.12.2016 Passed In Case No.1775/Cia-1/Circle-3(2)P.B/2014-15 Reviving Assessing Officer’S Action Imposing Penalty Of ¤56,31,415/- In Proceeding U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Case Called Twice. None Appears At Assessee’S Behest. It Is Accordingly Proceed Ex Parte Against Assessee In The Instant Case. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Ground Pleaded In This Instant Appeal Seeks To Revive The Assessing Officer’S Action Imposing Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of ₹56,31,415/- In His Order Dated 26.08.2015 As Reversed In The Cit(A)’S Order Under Challenge As Follows:- “I Have Considered The A.O'S Finding & Perused The Written Submission Along With The Assessment Order. The A.O. Had Impose The Penalty Under Section

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36

…reme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26, wherein it was held that the Assessing Officer is not bound to levy penalty automatically simply because the quantum addition has been sustained. Also in case of CIT v. KhodayEswara (83 ITR 369)(SC) reported in same ITR Volume, it is held that Penalty cannot be levied solely on basis of reasons given in original order of assessment. The hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the law in case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt.- CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 by holding in .. para 62 that finding in assessment proceedings cannot automatically be adopted in pe…

The DCIT, Circle-3(1), Baroda vs. M/S/ Amar Mining Company, Baroda

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1032/AHD/2016[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 1998-99

For Appellant: Apoorva Bharadwaj, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Soparkar &
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

…eedings are separate from assessment proceedings and the findings in the assessment proceedings cannot be made a ground for levy of penalty. He relied on the following decisions: i) Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. Vs. CIT 123 ITR 457 ii) Khoday Eswarsa & Sons 83 ITR 369 iii) Dilip N Shroff Vs. Jt. CIT 228 291 ITR 519 3.7. Ld. Authorized Representative has further submitted that the mere fact that the appellant had not been able to produce these parties cannot be made a ground for levy of penalty.' He also submitted that without these purchases, the assessee firm could not have effected sales and he further submi…

Sanjay Namdeo Bharti, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 155/PUN/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Oct 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri "ी "ी क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा राव लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी "याियक सद"य के सम" "याियक सद"य के सम" D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 155/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri M. K. Verma
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…hat levy of penalty is not automatic and every addition made during the assessment proceedings need not necessarily result in levy of penalty. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Khoday Eswarsa and Sons reported as 83 ITR 369 has held that the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are two independent and separate proceedings. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dharamchand L. Shah reported as 204 ITR 462 has held : “It is by now trite law that the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are two separate and distin…

Sahiwal Investment & Trading Co., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4913/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamblesahiwal Investment & Trading Vs Ito Co., Ward 22(2) 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacs0017J Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 32Section 50

…is brought on record to prove its falsity. In the penalty proceedings, the assessee may furnish fresh evidence which should be considered to prove the bonafide of the assessee. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: 1. CIT vs. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons 83 ITR 369 (SC) 2. Devsons Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 329 ITR 483 (Del) 3. Prasanna Enterprises vs. CIT 244 ITR 188 (Ker) 8. The Ld. AR further submitted that the very observation of the Tribunal that the assessee claimed depreciation on the building as alleged to have been admitted by the counsel in the proceeding and then invoking the provision of Section 50 of…

Alpex Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 239/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 24Section 271(1)(c)

…an Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 (SC), had laid down the position of law by holding that the Assessing Officer is not bound to levy penalty automatically simply because the quantum addition has been sustained. Also in case of CIT v. Khoday Eswara (83 ITR 369) (SC), incidentally reported in same ITR Volume, it is held that penalty cannot be levied solely on 4 basis of reasons given in original order of assessment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the law in case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 by holding in Para 62 that finding in assessment proceedings cannot automatically…

Joshi Wadewale Shewalwadi, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 99/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं, श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mrs. Vasundhara Shailesh Joshi, Joshi Wadewale, 1175, Shivajinagar, Near Balgandharv Rang Mandir, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411005 …. PAN: AASPJ6844K Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle 2(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.105 & 106/PUN/…

Mrs. Vasundhara Shailesh Joshi, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 96/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं, श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mrs. Vasundhara Shailesh Joshi, Joshi Wadewale, 1175, Shivajinagar, Near Balgandharv Rang Mandir, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411005 …. PAN: AASPJ6844K Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle 2(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.105 & 106/PUN/…

Mrs. Vasundhara Shailesh Joshi, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 95/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं, श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mrs. Vasundhara Shailesh Joshi, Joshi Wadewale, 1175, Shivajinagar, Near Balgandharv Rang Mandir, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411005 …. PAN: AASPJ6844K Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle 2(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.105 & 106/PUN/…

Joshi Wadewale Hadapsar, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 105/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं, श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mrs. Vasundhara Shailesh Joshi, Joshi Wadewale, 1175, Shivajinagar, Near Balgandharv Rang Mandir, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411005 …. PAN: AASPJ6844K Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle 2(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.105 & 106/PUN/…

Joshi Wadewale Prabhat Cinema, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 102/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं, श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mrs. Vasundhara Shailesh Joshi, Joshi Wadewale, 1175, Shivajinagar, Near Balgandharv Rang Mandir, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411005 …. PAN: AASPJ6844K Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle 2(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.105 & 106/PUN/…

Joshi Wadewale Shewalwadi, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 100/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं, श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mrs. Vasundhara Shailesh Joshi, Joshi Wadewale, 1175, Shivajinagar, Near Balgandharv Rang Mandir, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411005 …. PAN: AASPJ6844K Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle 2(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.105 & 106/PUN/…

M/S. R.H. Agro Overseas (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5233/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…n Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26, had laid down the position of law by holding that the Assessing Officer is not bound to levy penalty automatically simply because the quantum addition has been sustained. Also, in the case of CIT v. Khoday Eswara (83 ITR 369) (SC), it is held that penalty cannot be levied solely on basis of reasons given in original order of assessment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the law in case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT reported in 291 ITR 519 by holding in Para 62 that finding in assessment proceedings cannot automatically be adopted in penalty proceedings and t…

Anand and Anand, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4391/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.P.Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surenderpal, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 4

…penalty proceedings, they cannot be regarded as conclusive. This is the law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Anwar Ali reported in 76 ITR 696 (S.C.), Commissioner of Income Tax vs Khoday Eswarsa & Sons (1972) 83 ITR 369 (S.C.), Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. Vs C.I.T. reported in 123 ITR 457 (SC). In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Bacardi Martini India Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 585 (Del), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that merely because there was a difference of opinion between the assessee and the Assessing Officer, it cannot be said that the…

Sh. Ramesh Chand Garg, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Hapur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3419/DEL/2013[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2017AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 275Section 282Section 68

…roved by the ITAT and the order of the ITAT has become final because there is no further appeal filed by the assessee against the said order of the ITAT. However, as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Khoday Eswarsa and Sons reported in 83 ITR 369 (SC), the penalty cannot be levied solely on the basis of reasons given in the original assessment order. 5 Assessment year 2000-01 We have examined the facts of the case for the purpose of penalty proceedings afresh and we clarify that our finding is limited to and relevant for the purpose of determining whether the assessee can be said to hav…

Sh. Rohit Kochhar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6549/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Sistani, CAFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ndustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26, had laid down the position of law by holding that the Assessing Officer is not bound to levy penalty automatically simply because the quantum addition has been sustained. Also in case of CIT v. Khoday Eswara (83 ITR 369) (SC), incidentally reported in same ITR Volume, it is held that penalty cannot be levied solely on basis of reasons given in original order of assessment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the law in case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 by holding in Para 62 that finding in assessment proceedings cannot automatically be…

Ahamedsaib Babu, Vellore vs. ITO, Vellore

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 201/CHNY/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Manohar Doss,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.A.R.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT, D.R
Section 139(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ C’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.200 & 201/Mds./2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years :2011-12 & 2011-12 Mr.Ahamed Babu, Prop., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.9,South Vanniyar Street, Ward-1(6), Sholinghur,Walaja, Vellore-631 102. Vellore 631 102. [PAN BCRPB 7347 F ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.Manohar Doss,Advocate…

Ahamedsaib Babu, Vellore vs. ITO, Vellore

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 200/CHNY/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Manohar Doss,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.A.R.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT, D.R
Section 139(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ C’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.200 & 201/Mds./2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years :2011-12 & 2011-12 Mr.Ahamed Babu, Prop., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.9,South Vanniyar Street, Ward-1(6), Sholinghur,Walaja, Vellore-631 102. Vellore 631 102. [PAN BCRPB 7347 F ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.Manohar Doss,Advocate…

M/S. Groz Net Industries, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6241/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2004-05 Groz Net Industries, Vs Acit, C-717, New Friends Colony, Circle-22(1), New Delhi. New Delhi (Pan: Aaafg8454E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms Rano Jain Ca Shri Ashish Goel, Ca Respondent By : Shri S.K. Jain, Dr Date Of Hearing: 9.3.2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.5.2017 Order

For Appellant: Ms Rano Jain CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43BSection 80H

…dustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26, had laid down the position of law by holding that the Assessing Officer is not bound to levy penalty automatically simply because the quantum addition has been sustained. Also in case of CIT v. Khoday Eswara (83 ITR 369) (SC), incidentally reported in same ITR 4 I.T.A. No. 6241/Del/2013 Assessment Year 2004-05 Volume, it is held that penalty cannot be levied solely on basis of reasons given in original order of assessment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the law in case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 by holding in Para 62 that findin…