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 366,470 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

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 132Section 153ASection 154

Issues it is cited on

section 271(l)section 271(l)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomepenalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particularssection 274non-application of mindconcealment of incomepenalty u/s 271(1)(c)levy of penaltysection 271(1)section 271

Judgments citing CIT v. Manu Engg

Neel Controls, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1332/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Parag Modi, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Ld
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

…ection 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant clause would lead to an inference of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and levy of penalty would suffers from non-application of mind. 6.4 In the case of CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works ( 122 ITR 306) the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has also dealt with the ultimate finding for imposition of penalty and held as under: Now, the language of “and/or” may be proper in issuing a notice as to penalty order or framing of charge in a criminal case or a quasi-criminal case, but it is incumbent upon the IAC to come to a positive finding as to whether th…

Dhanraj Sethia, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1

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

ITA 169/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Saraswat, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC’’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 169/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Dhanraj Sethia cuke The ACIT Vs. K-53, Kishan Nagar, Shyam Nagar Circle-1 Jaipur 302 019 (Raj) Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABUPS 0573 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Praveen Saraswat, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh…

Paras Mal Jain, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 353/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143Section 271ASection 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. 353/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Paras Mal Jain cuke The DCIT Vs. 535, Tiwari Ji Ka Bagh Central Circle-1 Adrash Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABTPJ 9660 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri S.R. Sharma, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Ms. Chanchal…

Gawar Construction Co. Pvt Ltd, Hissar vs. DCIT, CC-1, Faridabad

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2309/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…so. For such a view, we may usefully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Co. (supra) as well as another decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works (1980) 122 ITR 306 (Guj). Thus, in totality, penal action under s.271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in law." 6. Consequently, the impugned penalty orders passed by the AO in respective captioned appeals are set aside and the penalty so imposed under Section 271(1)(c) are cancelled. 7. In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed. Ord…

Gawar Constructions Co. P.Ltd, Hisar vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2308/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…so. For such a view, we may usefully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Co. (supra) as well as another decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works (1980) 122 ITR 306 (Guj). Thus, in totality, penal action under s.271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in law." 6. Consequently, the impugned penalty orders passed by the AO in respective captioned appeals are set aside and the penalty so imposed under Section 271(1)(c) are cancelled. 7. In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed. Ord…

Gawar Constructions Co. Pvt Lt.D, Hisar vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2307/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…so. For such a view, we may usefully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Co. (supra) as well as another decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works (1980) 122 ITR 306 (Guj). Thus, in totality, penal action under s.271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in law." 6. Consequently, the impugned penalty orders passed by the AO in respective captioned appeals are set aside and the penalty so imposed under Section 271(1)(c) are cancelled. 7. In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed. Ord…

Gawar Constructions Co. Pvt Ltd., Hisar vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2306/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…so. For such a view, we may usefully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Co. (supra) as well as another decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works (1980) 122 ITR 306 (Guj). Thus, in totality, penal action under s.271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in law." 6. Consequently, the impugned penalty orders passed by the AO in respective captioned appeals are set aside and the penalty so imposed under Section 271(1)(c) are cancelled. 7. In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed. Ord…

DCIT Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Patan Solar Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3133/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Vs. M/Spatansolarpvtltd., Central Circle – 2(4) 602, 6Th Floor, Western Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Edge-I,Western Prathishtha Bhavan, Express Highway, Mk Road, Churchgate, Borivali (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400066. Pan/Gir No. : Aafcp6744A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr. V.K. Chaturvedi.Dr Respondent By : Mr. Rushabh Mehta.Ar Date Of Hearing 09.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.02.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act.The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr. V.K. Chaturvedi.DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rushabh Mehta.AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 292B

…] 292 ITR 11 (SC) at page 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The 2019-20 71(1)(c) Gujarat M/s Patan Solar Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. High Court in the case of Manu Engineering reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of Virgo Marketing P. Ltd., 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 t…

Smt. Amina Anvar, Kollam vs. The DCIT, Circle 1, Alappuzha

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

ITA 850/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Amina Anvar Vs Dcit,Circle -1 Alappuzha City Opticals, Pipson Complex Pada South, Karunagappally Kollam Kerala-690 518 Pan – Agmpa5574B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri. Rajakannan, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17. 2. The Solitary Issue That Arises For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Imposition Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act Amounting To Rs. 38,669/-.

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

…sed on a different footing altogether cannot be sustained. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court reads as follows:- 5 Smt. Amina Anvar “ Learned counsel also read before us the decisions of this Court in CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works [1980] 122 ITR 306 and K.M.Bhatia (Quarry) v. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 379, in which the ratio of the decision of this court in Lakhadir Lalji’s case [1972] 85 ITR 77, was reiterated. There can obviously be no dispute about a proposition that if the very basis for the penalty proceedings against the assessee initiated by the Income-tax Officer disappeared, then the penal…

Padam Kumar Jain, Ranchi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

ITA 17/RAN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 80G

…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…

Padam Kumar Jain, Ranchi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

ITA 16/RAN/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 80G

…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…

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), Kolkata vs. Eversight Tradecomm Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

ITA 589/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 22(1)Section 22(4)Section 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…

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), Kolkata vs. Eversight Trade Comm Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

ITA 588/KOL/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 22(1)Section 22(4)Section 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…

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), Kolkata vs. Eversight Trade Comm Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

ITA 587/KOL/2022[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2023AY 2008-2009

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 22(1)Section 22(4)Section 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…

Vinod (Ratan) Suhalka, Udaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 241/JODH/2019[2007-08]Status: PendingITAT Jodhpur05 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 241 & 242/Jodh/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2007-08 & 2008-09 ) Shri Vinod (Ratan) Suhalka Vs The ACIT Udaipur C.C.-1 Udaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AJYPS 0059C Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari Revenue By Shri Venkatesh V (JCIT-DR) Date of hearing 03/11/2022 Date of 05/01/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee against two different orders of the ld. CIT(A), dated 12-04-2019 for the asses…

The ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Dineshchandra R Agrawal Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 85/AHD/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 85/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT.D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…me". Thus it transpires that in the penalty order also the AO was not sure about the allegation for which the penalty has to be levied. 5.12 In support of this, reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Manu Engineering [122 ITR 306]&New Sorathia Engineering Co. Vs. CIT [282 ITR 642]. This view has also been uphold by the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in the following cases:- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH "D" [CAMP AT BARODA] ITA No.3065/Ahd/2008 (Assessment Year:- 1997-98) The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-2(2), Baroda V/s Shri Nayan R Mongia, M…

Shri Paresh K. Sorathiya, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 342/SRT/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.342/Srt/2018 (Ay 2009-10) (Hearing In Physical Court) Shri Paresh Sorathiya Income Tax Officer 195, Ambica Nagar No.2, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Vs Opp. Arogya Kendra, Gate, Surat-395001 Katargam Road, Surat Pan : Axbps 9579 C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…pon the decisions of Full Bench of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1 Belgaum [2021] 125 taxmann.com 253 (Bom); decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works 122 ITR 306 (Guj); Nayan C. Shah vs. ITO 386 ITR 304 (Guj); New Sorathia Engineering Co. vs. CIT 282 ITR 642 (Guj), Allarakhu B. Memon & Bilal B. Memon in ITA Nos.2388-2390/AHD/2016 dated 15.11.2018 and in R.S. Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, in ITA No.2130/AHD/2014/SRT dated 04.02.2021. 10 Sh. Paresh Sorathiya 11. On merit the ld AR for the assessee submits t…

Shri Shaileshkumar Shivrambahi Patel, Palanpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Palanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 999/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year:2012-13 Shaileshkumarshivrambhai Patel, The Ito, Ward-5, Prop. M/S. Toran Aqua Link, 23, Naval Vs Palanpur. Park Society, O/S. Becharpura Railway Station, Palanpur, Banaskantha-385001. Pan :Aefpp 7860 J (Applicant) (Responent)

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Shah, CAFor Respondent: ShriV. K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ote that Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of T Ashok Pai - 292 ITR 11 (SC) held. that “concealment of income” and “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income” carry different connotations. The Hon`ble Gujarat High Court in case of Manu Engineering Works -122 ITR 306 (Guj.) held. that the penalty order has to be clear as to limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Further, on the identical facts, Hon`ble Gujarat High Court in case of Nayan C. Shah vs. ITO [Tax Appeal No. 543 of 2012 (Guj- HC)] held. as follows: "11. Another notable aspect of the matter is that whi…

Raj Kumari Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Dy CIT, CC-II, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Jun 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri R. K. Bhatra (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…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 invoked the first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be app…

Saritaben Rahul Kakadia, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 553/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.553/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Saritaben Rahul Kakadia, Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(2)(3), S.R. Textiles, 59, Vishnu Nagar, Surat. Near Ankur Char Rasta, Varachha, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Clnpk0716K (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hiren Vepari, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sita Ram Meena, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A) Surat-3/10420/2016-17 Dated 22.10.2019, Which In Turn Arise Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Vepari, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sita Ram Meena, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…vited to the said decision. Therefore, whether the Tribunal has recorded any finding or not becomes immaterial. In the facts as are available on the record it is apparent that the ratio of a decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Manu Engg. Works [1980] 122 ITR 306 , applies on all fours. 11. In the case of CIT v. Manu Engg. Works [1980] 122 ITR 306, this is what is laid down by this court: "...We find from the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, in the penalty proceedings, that is, the final conclusion as expressed in para 4 of the order : ‘I am of the opinion that it will have to be said tha…