CIT v. Manu Engg

122 ITR 306High Court1980#133 most cited

What is CIT v. Manu Engg authority for?

When levying a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the Assessing Officer must clearly specify whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. An ambiguous notice or order using "and/or" for these limbs, or a standard proforma without striking irrelevant clauses, indicates non-application of mind and renders the penalty unsustainable.

505

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Manu Engg · Manu Engineering · Section 271(1)(c) · Section 274 · levy of penalty · penalty notice · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars of income · ambiguous penalty order · non-application of mind · penalty unsustainable

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Manu Engg

Shri. Kishore, Udupi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Udupi

In the result, assessee’s appeal for asst

ITA 2740/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazita No.2740 & 2741/Bang/2017 (Asst. Year 2008-09 & 2009-10) Shri Kishore, ‘Samrudhi’, Near Durga Parameshwari Temple, Kannarpady, Kadekar, Udupi-576 103. . Appellant Pan – Aoapk 9791E. Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Udupi. . Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Prathiba, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Padma Meenakshi, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 26-4-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-5-2018 O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-10, Bangalore Dated 25/10/2017; Upholding The Orders Of The Ito, Ward-1, Udupi Dated 31/3/2015 Levying Penalty Of Rs.7,23,418/- & Rs.4,49,780/-

For Appellant: Smt. Prathiba, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ars. The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Pai reported in 292 ITR 11 at page 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of M4NU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO IvL4RKETING reported in 171 Taxman 156, has held that penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the action being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appropriatel…

ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Basanti Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 151/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Acit, Central Circle- V/S. M/S Basanti Properties 2(3), Roomno403, 4Th Pvt. Ltd., 107/1, Park Floor, Aayakar Bhawan Street, Kolkata-16 Poorva,110, Shanti [Pan No.Aabcb 0344 E] Pally, E.M. Bye-Pass, Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri G. Hangshing, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 28-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Kolkata Dated 08.11.2016. Penalty Imposed By Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.09.2014 For Assessment Year 2013-14. Shri G. Hangshing, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue & Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Ld. Authorized Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee. 2. Sole Issue Raised By The Revenue In This Appeal Is That Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

Section 133ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ars. The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Pai reported in 292 ITR 11 at page 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of MANU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO MARKETING reported in 171 Taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appr…

ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Kwality Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 150/KOL/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Acit, Central Circle- V/S. M/S Kwality Ltd. 2(3), Room No. 403, 4Th F-82, Shivaji Place, Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Rajouri Garden, New Poorva, 110, Shanti Delhi-100 027 Pally, E.M. Bye-Pas, [Pan No.Aabck 1289 R] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri G. Hangshing, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 28-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20 Dated 08.11.2016. Penalty Levied By Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.09.2015 For Assessment Year 2011-12. The Revenue Has Raised Following Ground:- “(I) That, Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In View Of The Distinction Of Facts Of The Instant Case (Discussed Elaborately In Respect To He Statement Of Facts) That The Of The Case Law Relied Upon In Deciding The Case In Favour Of The Assessee, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing Relief To The Assessee. (Ii) That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Amend Any Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of MANU ITA No.150/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 ACIT, CC-2(3), Kol. Vs. M/s Kwality Ltd. Page 8 ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO MARKETING reported in 171 Taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appr…