CIT v. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries

Jatin Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3885/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2009-10) Jatin Enterprises, 31, Savita Sadan, 1St Parsiwada, V.P.Road, C.P.Tank, Mumbai – 400 004. Pan: Aaafj-4667-N ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit-19(2),Mumbai, Matru Mandir, Income Tax Office,Tardeo, Mumbai – 400 007. ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Bhende "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.A.R सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 20/03/2024 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/03/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 01/09/2023, For The Assessment Year 2009-10, Confirming Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961[ In Short ‘The Act’].

….5% of such purchases. The addition made by the Assessing Officer and subsequently restricted by the CIT(A) to 12.5% is merely on estimations. 5. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries reported as 360 ITR 580 has held that where addition is made purely on estimate basis, no penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act is leviable. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. reported as 303 ITR 53. The Hon'ble High Court approving the order of Tribunal held that when the addition h…

Income Tax Officer Ward-26(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Saraswati Wire and Cable Industries, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…various decisions of the Tribunal that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable on estimated additions and also after taking into consideration the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries 360 ITR 580; the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd 303 ITR 53 (P&H); and the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Subhsh Trading Co Ltd 221 ITR 110 (Guj), we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned penalty levied on estimated addition. Therefore, the appeal of…

K P Sanghvi & Sons LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-19(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm K P Sanghvi & Sons Llp Asst. Cit-19(2) 12A-03, Crescenzo, C-38/39, Mumbai Vs. G – Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaafk 8390 F (Assessee) (Respondent) :

…e where the addition is made on estimated basis, the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. The Tribunal has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries reported as 360 ITR 580, the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. reported as 303 ITR 53 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. reported as 221 ITR 110. It is observed that all the above mentioned decisions have reiterated the proposition that the penalty u/s. 271(…

Ramnik Sushil Chaudhry, Mumbai vs. Assistant .CIT Circle (3), Thane

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

…he basis of estimation, is an issue, which is also covered by decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Whitelene Chemicals, 360 ITR 385 (Guj) and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retrading & Rubber Industries 360 ITR 580 (Raj), which have been consistently followed by this Tribunal in various decisions. 16. Thus, considering the settled position and facts obtaining in this case viz; addition being made on the basis of estimate show the impugned orders levying penalty cannot be sustained. Therefore, the appeals deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the appeals are…

Dombivli Paper Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd, Thane vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Kalyan

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order of imposition of penalty is hereby set aside

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2011-12 Dombivali Paper Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income B-42, Phase-I, Midc, Golavali Tax, Circle-1, Kalyan Village, Dombivali (E), (Respondent) Dist Thane 421 203 Pan : Aaacd5897M (Appellant)

…n the basis of an estimate, the Assessing Officer was not justified in imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries, 360 ITR 580 (Rajasthan) and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs Whitelene Chemicals, 360 ITR 385 (Gujarat). 6. It is submitted that before the Assessing Officer, appellant had produced material to show that the impugned purchases were genuine and thus, even on facts, no addition could have been made. It is alternatively submitted that, in any event, the ad…

M/S Supertech Construction Company, Mumbai vs. ACIT 27 (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed

…nds of assessee on account of bogus purchase merely on estimations. It is an accepted legal position that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied where additions are made on estimate. [Re: CIT Vs. Krishi Tyre Re-trading & Rubber Industries 360 ITR 580(Raj.), CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Company 221 ITR 110 (Guj.), CIT Vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. 303 ITR 53 (P&H)]. 5. We further find that the notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 18.03.2015 and the subsequent notice issued under section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 15.03.2019 falls short of the legal requirement to be…

Jaisingh H Solanki, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2211/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Jaisingh H. Solanki बिधम/ Ito-19(2)(1) 25-C Sonarika Apt, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Vs. Nanubhai Desai Road, Road, Mumbai-400004. Chandawadi, Mumbai- 400004. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Acaps6502R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Ujjawal Kumar Chavan (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 24.02.2023 For Ay. 2010-11 Confirming The Action Of The Ao Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. None Appeared For Assessee But Has Filed Written Submission. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is Delay Of 52 Days & The Assessee Has Filed A Sworn Affidavit Dated 12.09.2022. After Going Through The Contents Of The Affidavit, We Are Of The Opinion That There Was Reasonable Cause For Belated Filing Of The Appeal. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Hear The Penalty Appeal On Its Own Merit.

…n action, we rely on the following decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts wherein the Hon’ble High Courts have upheld the action of Tribunal deleting penalty levied on estimated quantum addition as under: - “CIT Vs. Krishi Tyre Retreadign and Rubber Industries (360 ITR 580) (Raj) CIT Vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. (303 ITR 53) (P & H) CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. (221 ITR 110) (Guj).” 7. Thus, as noted (supra), the issue as to whether the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act be levied on estimated quantum addition is no longer res-integra, therefore, we are inclined to direct the deletion of the penalty levied to…

Bhawarlal Tarachandji Jain, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1729 & 1730/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12)

…where the addition is made on estimated basis, the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable 4. The Tribunal has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries reported as 360 ITR 580, the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. San grur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. reported as 303 ITR 53 and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. reported as 221 ITR 110. It is observed that all the above mentioned decisions have reiterated the proposition that the penalty u/s 271(…

Bhawarlal Tarachandji Jain, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1729 & 1730/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12)

…where the addition is made on estimated basis, the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable 4. The Tribunal has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries reported as 360 ITR 580, the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. San grur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. reported as 303 ITR 53 and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. reported as 221 ITR 110. It is observed that all the above mentioned decisions have reiterated the proposition that the penalty u/s 271(…

L. S. Diamonds, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

…f the Act is not leviable, if the addition is made on estimated basis. In this regard the Coordinate Bench has taken support of 3 L.S. Diamonds the decision rendered by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries (360 ITR 580) and decision rendered by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. (221 ITR 110). For the sake of convenience we extract below the operative portion of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in the above said case :- “9. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of the authorities…

L. S. Diamonds, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

…f the Act is not leviable, if the addition is made on estimated basis. In this regard the Coordinate Bench has taken support of 3 L.S. Diamonds the decision rendered by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries (360 ITR 580) and decision rendered by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. (221 ITR 110). For the sake of convenience we extract below the operative portion of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in the above said case :- “9. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of the authorities…

H K Industries, Mumbai vs. ITO-34(2)(1) Current Juridiction, Mumbai

In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

…nalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act levied on additions made merely on estimations is unsustainable. 4 ITA 1109/Mum/2023 H.K. Industries 10. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries reported as 360 ITR 580 has held that where addition is made purely on estimate basis, no penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act is leviable. Similar view has been expressed by Ho'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. reported as 303 ITR 53. The Hon'ble High Court approving the order of Tribunal held that when the addition has be…

M/S. Metal Traders, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 33(2)(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1139/मुं/ 2023 ("न.व.2011-12) M/S. Metal Traders, B/307, E/3, Highway Park, Thakur Complex, Kandivali East, Mumbai 400 101 Pan: Aagfm-3851-K ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito-Ward 33(2)(3), C-12, 6Th Floor, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Dinkle Haria, Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/06/2023 आदेश/ Order

…. This view has been upheld by different Hon’ble High Courts. Some of the decisions, wherein penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act levied on estimated additions has held to be unsustainable are as under:- (i) CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries, 360 ITR 580(Raj); (ii) CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., 303 ITR 53 (P&H; (iii) CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd., 221 ITR 110 (Guj); (iv) CIT vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd., 322 ITR 316 (Delhi). The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ramnarain And Company vs. ACIT (supra), ACIT vs. Golkunda Diamonds & Jewellery Ltd.(supra) and ACIT vs. M/s…

Fancy Diamonds India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

…dated 17.06.2022, has deleted the penalty holding that no penalty could be levied on estimated addition. In this regard, the co-ordinate bench has followed the decisions rendered in the following cases:- a) CIT vs Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries, 360 ITR 580 (Raj); b) CIT vs Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., 303 ITR 53 (P&H); and, c) CIT vs Subhash Trading Co. Ltd., 221 ITR 110 (Guj) 4. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed that penalty levied in these years on estimated addition may kindly be deleted. Fancy Diamonds India Pvt. Ltd. 5. The Ld. DR, on the contrary, supported the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A)…

Fancy Diamonds India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

…dated 17.06.2022, has deleted the penalty holding that no penalty could be levied on estimated addition. In this regard, the co-ordinate bench has followed the decisions rendered in the following cases:- a) CIT vs Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries, 360 ITR 580 (Raj); b) CIT vs Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., 303 ITR 53 (P&H); and, c) CIT vs Subhash Trading Co. Ltd., 221 ITR 110 (Guj) 4. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed that penalty levied in these years on estimated addition may kindly be deleted. Fancy Diamonds India Pvt. Ltd. 5. The Ld. DR, on the contrary, supported the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A)…

Fancy Diamonds India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

…dated 17.06.2022, has deleted the penalty holding that no penalty could be levied on estimated addition. In this regard, the co-ordinate bench has followed the decisions rendered in the following cases:- a) CIT vs Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries, 360 ITR 580 (Raj); b) CIT vs Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., 303 ITR 53 (P&H); and, c) CIT vs Subhash Trading Co. Ltd., 221 ITR 110 (Guj) 4. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed that penalty levied in these years on estimated addition may kindly be deleted. Fancy Diamonds India Pvt. Ltd. 5. The Ld. DR, on the contrary, supported the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A)…

M/S Ramnarain and Co., Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-17(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

…e where the addition is made on estimated basis, the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. The Tribunal has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries reported as 360 ITR 580, the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. reported as 303 ITR 53 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. 5 ITA 347/Mum/2023 M/s Ramanarain And Company reported as 221 ITR 110. It is observed that all the above mentioned decisions have reiter…

Mukesh Saligram Sharda, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 1(2) Kalyan, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

…various decisions of the Tribunal that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable on estimated additions and also after taking into consideration the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries 360 ITR 580; the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd 303 ITR 53 (P&H); and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Subhsh Trading Co Ltd 221 ITR 110 (Guj), we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned penalty levied on estimated addition. Therefore, the appeal of…