CIT v. Metal Products of India

150 ITR 714High Court1984#2436 most cited

What is CIT v. Metal Products of India authority for?

The Assessing Officer has the authority to collect information in any manner and utilize it for framing an assessment, provided there is material on record to substantiate any addition made.

47

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Metal Products of India · 150 ITR 714 · Assessing Officer powers · collection of information · framing assessment · material on record · addition to income · section 143(3) · section 147 · section 142(1)

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 143(3)Section 148Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 250

Issues it is cited on

section 14a disallowancebogus share capitalsection 153(a)audi alteram partemtax benefiton-moneysection 292csection 132(4a)tested partyshell companyviolation of natural justiceentry operator

Judgments citing CIT v. Metal Products of India

Shri Ganesh Bhivraj Bhutada, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle1(1), Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1131/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri V Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…technical rules of evidence. It has been held at various judicial forums that what is important for income tax proceedings is observance of principle of natural justice and strict rules of evidence does not apply. In the case of CIT v Metal Products of India 150 ITR 714 Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that “…..strict rules of evidence, as are known to the Indian Evidence Act are not applicable to income-tax proceedings and thus the word 'evidence in the income-tax proceedings has to be understood in the generic sense.” 20.2 In the case of GTC Industries Ltd. v ACIT 65 ITD 380, ITAT Mumbai Bench has relied u…

ITO, Ward-24(1), New Delhi vs. Sun Intrastate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1470/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ajasthan High Court in the case of Rameshwarlal Mali vs. CIT 256 ITR 536(Raj.) has held that "there is no provision for permitting the cross examination of the persons whose statements were recorded during survey." 1. In CIT v. Metal Products of India (1984) 150 ITR 714 (P&H), it was held that the AO may gather information in any manner he likes, behind the back of the assessee and utilize the same against the assessee, even if it does not, in all respects satisfy the requirements of the Indian Evidence Act. What is necessary is that he should have material upon which to base the assessment; “material” as distin…

ITO, Ward-24(1), New Delhi vs. Sun Intrastate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1469/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ajasthan High Court in the case of Rameshwarlal Mali vs. CIT 256 ITR 536(Raj.) has held that "there is no provision for permitting the cross examination of the persons whose statements were recorded during survey." 1. In CIT v. Metal Products of India (1984) 150 ITR 714 (P&H), it was held that the AO may gather information in any manner he likes, behind the back of the assessee and utilize the same against the assessee, even if it does not, in all respects satisfy the requirements of the Indian Evidence Act. What is necessary is that he should have material upon which to base the assessment; “material” as distin…

Radiant Cement Company Private Limited, Kala Amb, Sirmour vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO, Nahan, Sirmour

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 186/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 186/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Radiant Cement Company Private Vs. The Ito, Limited, बनाम Nahan, Kala Amb, Sirmour Sirmour "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacr8765J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR

…ified. Again, neither such enquiry was ever confronted to assessee nor the Assessee was given opportunity to cross examine Mukesh. It was submitted that the learned Assessing Officer has relied on the decision in the case of ‘CIT vs. Metal Products of India’, 150 ITR 714 (P&H), wherein it is held that ‘the Assessing Officer may gather information in any manner he likes, behind the back of the assessee and utilize the same 5 186-Chd-2024 & SA-12-Chd-2024 – Radiant Cement Company Pvt. Ltd., Sirmour, H.P. against the assessee, even if it does not, in all respects satisfy the requirements of the Indian evidence Act.…

Spectrum Foods Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 38/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…T OF INDIA T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India. 7. Rameshwar Lal Mali vs CIT 256 ITR 536 (Raj.). 8. Mahendra N. Chatterjee v. Collector of Central Excise. 9. Soman Citi v. JCIT in ITA No. 2960/Mum/2016 10. CIT Vs Metal Products of India (1984) 150 ITR 714 (P&H). 11. Ram Niwas Gupta, Dehradun v. DCIT, Dehradun on 6th February, 2019 in ITA No. 4881 to 4883/Del/2016 (Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13 and 2013-14). 12. [2022] 136 taxmann.com 333 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Mega Corporation Ltd: 13. Sh Satish Kishore Vs ITO and Naval Kishore Vs ITO (2019-TIOL-…

Bharat De vs. Hi Dagha, Thanevs.ITO Ward 3(1), Kalyan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3315/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kalpesh Khatri, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Kumar Meena, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

…iple of natural justice and strict rules of evidence does not apply. In the case of CIT v Metal Products of rules of evidence does not apply. In the case of CIT v Metal Products of rules of evidence does not apply. In the case of CIT v Metal Products of India 150 ITR 714 Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that: India 150 ITR 714 Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that: India 150 ITR 714 Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that:- ".....strict rules of evidence, as are known to the ".....strict rules of evidence, as are known to the ".....strict rules of evidence, as are known to the Indian Evidence Act, are n…

Bharat De vs. Hi Dagha, Thanevs.ITO Ward 3(1), Kalyan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3314/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kalpesh Khatri, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Kumar Meena, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

…iple of natural justice and strict rules of evidence does not apply. In the case of CIT v Metal Products of rules of evidence does not apply. In the case of CIT v Metal Products of rules of evidence does not apply. In the case of CIT v Metal Products of India 150 ITR 714 Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that: India 150 ITR 714 Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that: India 150 ITR 714 Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that:- ".....strict rules of evidence, as are known to the ".....strict rules of evidence, as are known to the ".....strict rules of evidence, as are known to the Indian Evidence Act, are n…

DCIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4305/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl Counsel
Section 10Section 10(5)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…not the intendment of the Legislature. [Para 10] Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue had no merits and was to be dismissed." 5.3 It has been held in CIT vs. Dhillon Rice Mills (2002) 256 ITR 447 (P&H) following CIT vs. Metal Products of India (1984) 150 ITR 714 (P&H) and Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) that in a case of addition based upon estimation, there can be no penalty unless the Income-tax Department brings something on record to indicate that there has been concealment on the part of the assessee. 5.4 It has been held in Balaji Vegetable Products P Ltd v CIT (2007) 290 ITR 72(Ka…

Jitendrakumar Bhailal Dodiya, Savarkundla vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Amreli

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 45/RJT/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ve amount of addition of Rs.1,40,841/- is totally on presumption and estimated basis. It is settled law no penalty in respect of addition made on estimated basis can be levied. The assessee relies on the following: 1. 106 ITR 672 (All.) - Mussadilal Singh 2. 150 ITR 714 (P & H) - Metal Products of India 3. 258 ITR 85 (P & H) - HarigopaJ Singh 4. 140 !TR 943 (Bom.) - Devendas Eprumal Co. 5. 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) - Krushi Tire Rt. & Rubber Ind. 2.1.1 It may also be submitted that at Para 4.3 page no. 4 of the assessment order the Ld. A.O. has mentioned that ............... A penalty proceeding U/s. 271(1) (c) of the…

Shri Vijay J. Faldu, Upleta vs. The ITO, Ward-1 (4), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 110/RJT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ove amount of addition of Rs. 4,52,127/- is totally on presumption and estimated basis. It is settled law no penalty in respect of addition made on estimated basis can be levied. The assessee relies on the following: 1. 106 ITR6 72(All) – Mussadilal Singh 2. 150 ITR 714 (P&H) - Metal Products of India 3. 258 ITR 85 (P&H) - Harigopal Singh 4. 140 ITR 943 (Bom.) - Devendas Eprumal Co. 5. 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) - Krushi Tire Rt. & Rubber Ind. 2.1.1 It may also be submitted that at Para 3.2 page no. 3 of the assessment order the Ld. A.O. has mentioned that from above facts, it is clear that the assessee has shown inacc…

DCIT CC-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ruby Mills Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3958/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit Central Circle 8(4) Vs. M/S. Ruby Mills Ltd., Room No.658, 6Th Floor 11Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan Ruby House, J.K. Sawant M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Marg, Dadar (W) Mumbai – 400 028 Pan/Gir No.Aaact0220G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

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

…uch the addition made by applying the proviso to s. 145(1) cannot be made the basis for imposition of penalty under s. 271(l)(c). This view has been upheld by the Punjab High Court in the case of CIT vs. Metal Products of India (1985) 45 CTR (P&H) 45 : (1984) 150 ITR 714 (P&H): TC 50R.871. The High Court has observed as under: 'Held, that merely because the addition had been made on estimate under the proviso to s. 145(1) by adopting the view that the gross profit shown in the books of account was took low as there were defects in the method of accounting employed, did not automatically lead to the conclusion tha…

Hiralal Kalpur Gupta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(5), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 7446/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7446/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ Hiralal Kalpu Gupta Ito Ward 2(5) 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, Near Ladi Naka Bus Stand, Vs. Kalyan Badlapur Road, Wayale Nagar, Kalyan (W), Ambarnath-421505, Dist: Dist: Thane. Thane. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ablpg6893P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Mrs. Jothilakshmi Nayak (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/11/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 10.10.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Order To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Jothilakshmi Nayak (DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…the total turnover. No penalty is liable to be leviable specifically in the circumstances, when the income has been assessed on the basis of estimation basis in view of the decision of Hon’ble Punjab High Court in the case of CIT vs. Metal Products of India (150 ITR 714 and in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (258 ITR 85) and in the case of CIT vs. Nawab and Bros. (1977) 107 ITR. 681 (All HC). Taking into account, all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the penalty is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, we delete the penalty. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the…

M/S. Yum! Restaurants (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3530/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2019AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Ms Ananya Kapoor, advocateFor Respondent: Shri NK Bansal
Section 271Section 274Section 40Section 40A

…addition finally sustained by coordinate bench is on estimated basis and it is a trite law that when addition is made on estimated basis, no penalty is leviable. She heavily relied on decision of CIT vs Metal products of India (Punjab and Haryana High Court) 150 ITR 714 and CIT vs white line chemicals (Gujarat High Court) 360 ITR 385. Therefore, she stated that as coordinate bench itself has given part relief to assessee on this issue penalty is not leviable. She further stated that for assessment year 2004 – 05 and 2005 – 06 disallowance has been made by invoking provisions of section 40A (2) of act. She stated…

Shri Puneet Jain, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1569/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Suleka Verma, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…g Officer is not fettered or bound by technical rules about evidence contained in the Indian Evidence Act, and he is entitled to act on material which may not be accepted as evidence in a Court of law. [Para 6.3] In the case of CIT v. Metal Products of India 150 ITR 714 Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the word 'evidence' as a term of law is not an arrested one. In the context of the Indian Evidence Act, 'evidence' means and includes all statements made before the Court which are called 'oral evidence' and all documents produced before it for inspection which are called 'documentary evidence'. T…

Sonali A Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 7211/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7211/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बिधम/ Smt. Sonali A. Shah Ito 21(2)(4) Prop M/S. Mannat Mumbai Vs. Enterprises Flat No.301/302/302, Raj Prashar, 3Rd Floor, 95-F, Indrayan Road, Mumbai- 400054. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadpa7722N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Neelam C. Jadhav Revenue By: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/07/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 12.08.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Order To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Neelam C. JadhavFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 4Section 41(1)

…ad to furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. 9. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M.M. Rice Mills (2002) 253 ITR 17 (P & H) following the decision of Hon’ble Punjab High Court in the case of CIT vs. Metal Products of India (150 ITR 714) held as under: ITA No.5720/M/2013 Mrs. Sonali A. Shah 8 “merely because the addition had been made on estimate under the proviso to s. 145(1) by adopting the view that the gross profit shown in the books of account was too low as there were defects in the method of accounting employed, did not automatically lead to the conclusion that there was…

Smt. Sushila Devi Kajaria, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 36, Kolkata

ITA 1255/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 143(3)Section 68

…vs Jay Engineering Works Ltd. (1978) 11 ITR 389 (Del.) held that the Assessing Officer has, no doubt, to hear "evidence", but sue evidence may consist of material which would be wholly inadmissible in court of law. 15. In CIT vs Metal Products of India (1984) 150 ITR 714 (P&H), it was held that the AO may gather information in any manner he likes, behind that back of the assessee and utilize the same against the assessee, even if it does not, in all respects satisfy the requirements of the Indian Evidence Act. What is necessary is that he should have material upon which to base the assessment; "material" as disti…

Navin Kumar Kajaria, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 35, Kolkata

ITA 1254/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 143(3)Section 68

…vs Jay Engineering Works Ltd. (1978) 11 ITR 389 (Del.) held that the Assessing Officer has, no doubt, to hear "evidence", but sue evidence may consist of material which would be wholly inadmissible in court of law. 15. In CIT vs Metal Products of India (1984) 150 ITR 714 (P&H), it was held that the AO may gather information in any manner he likes, behind that back of the assessee and utilize the same against the assessee, even if it does not, in all respects satisfy the requirements of the Indian Evidence Act. What is necessary is that he should have material upon which to base the assessment; "material" as disti…

Punjab Sind Dairy Products P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 33, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6247/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

For Appellant: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (AR)For Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “C” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), AG-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, v. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN: AADCP5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (AR) Revenue by: Shri. D.G Pansari (DR)…

Punjab Sind Dairy Products P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 33, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6246/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

For Appellant: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (AR)For Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “C” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), AG-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, v. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN: AADCP5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (AR) Revenue by: Shri. D.G Pansari (DR)…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda vs. Sh. Daljit Singh, Bathinda

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 461/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N.S.Saini & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.461(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year:2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (Ld. DR)For Respondent: None
Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…fit, there can be no penalty unless the Department brings something on record to indicate that there has been concealment on the part of the assessee. In coming to this conclusion, it followed its own earlier decision in CIT vs. Metal Products of India [1984] 150 ITR 714 (P&H). The proposition that penalty cannot be ITA No.461 /Asr/2015 (A.Y.2007-08) 3 Asst. CIT vs. Daljit Singh, Bathinda imposed, -ere an addition is based merely on estimate finds further support in Harigopal Singh Vs CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85 (P&H). It cannot be gainsaid that the appellant’s case falls in the category of estimated addition as th…