CIT v. Mohd. Mohtram Farroqui

259 ITR 132High Court2003#13872 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. Mohd. Mohtram Farroqui

Deepak Kumar Rajoria, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Bikaner

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 170/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Assessing Authority Tax Was Paid & Adjust From Tds The Appellant Was Aware Of The Fact That There Is Any Form By Filing Which The Penalty May Be Dropped So The Penalty Was Never Leviable In This Case Therefore The Penalty U/S 270A May Please Be Cancelled. 3. The Appellant Prays For Justice & Relief. 4. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Addition Or Alternative Ground At Or Before The Hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271(1)(C)Section 274Section 80G

…voluntarily surrender never attracts penalty provision as held in various judgements "Penalty is unjustified in those case wherein assessee has surrender the amounts voluntarily as reported:- CIT Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal 251 ITR 9 (SC) CIT VS. Mohd. Mohtram 259 ITR 132 (Raj) ITO Vs. Subhash Kumar Jain 582/JP/1997 ITO Vs. Chetram Goyal ITA 1552/JP/97 Chandrakanta Vs. ACIT ITA 699 & 700/JP/1998 ACIT Vs. Rajasthan Machinery Store ITA 1510/JP/96 In these judgement it is held that where the assessee has surrendered income than penalty in these case is unjustified and deserve to be cancelled this is not a question…

Mangi Lal Kandoi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 322/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 245D(4)Section 271A

…an only be treated as involuntary. In view of the Explanation deeming concealment, the assessee has a duty to offer an explanation. But where an explanation was offered and found to be unreliable, penalty becomes exigible. [CIT v Mohd. Mohtram Farooqui (2003) 259 ITR 132 (Raj)]. Therefore, your honour is requested to delete the penalty imposed by the learned AO and confirmed by the Learned CIT(A). Ground No. 5 – The assessee craves your indulgence to add amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. Not pressed. 45 Mangi Lal Kandoi, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur Your Honor is requested…

Mangi Lal Kandoi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2, Jaipur

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

ITA 321/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar ( Adv.)For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)a

Section 127Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…an only be treated as involuntary. In view of the Explanation deeming concealment, the assessee has a duty to offer an explanation. But where an explanation was offered and found to be unreliable, penalty becomes exigible. [CIT v Mohd. Mohtram Farooqui (2003) 259 ITR 132 (Raj)]. Therefore, your honour is requested to delete the penalty imposed by the learned AO and confirmed by the Learned CIT(A). Ground No. 6 – The assessee craves your indulgence to add amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. Not pressed. Your Honor is requested to decide the appeal in favour of the assessee…

Mangi Lal Kandoi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2, Jaipur

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

ITA 320/JPR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar ( Adv.)For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)a

Section 127Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…an only be treated as involuntary. In view of the Explanation deeming concealment, the assessee has a duty to offer an explanation. But where an explanation was offered and found to be unreliable, penalty becomes exigible. [CIT v Mohd. Mohtram Farooqui (2003) 259 ITR 132 (Raj)]. Therefore, your honour is requested to delete the penalty imposed by the learned AO and confirmed by the Learned CIT(A). Ground No. 6 – The assessee craves your indulgence to add amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. Not pressed. Your Honor is requested to decide the appeal in favour of the assessee…

Mangi Lal Kandoi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2, Jaipur

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

ITA 319/JPR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar ( Adv.)For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)a

Section 127Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…an only be treated as involuntary. In view of the Explanation deeming concealment, the assessee has a duty to offer an explanation. But where an explanation was offered and found to be unreliable, penalty becomes exigible. [CIT v Mohd. Mohtram Farooqui (2003) 259 ITR 132 (Raj)]. Therefore, your honour is requested to delete the penalty imposed by the learned AO and confirmed by the Learned CIT(A). Ground No. 6 – The assessee craves your indulgence to add amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. Not pressed. Your Honor is requested to decide the appeal in favour of the assessee…

Asst CIT 21(3), Mumbai vs. Vinod Cookware, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5888/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri S Rifaur Rahman (Am) Acit-2(3), Vs M/S Vinod Cookware Room No. 209, 2Nd Floor, 56, Evergreen Industrial Estate 2Nd Floor, Shakti Mills Lane Piramal Chambers, Laulbaug, Dr. E Moses Road, Mahalaxmi Mumbai-400012 Mumbai 400 011 Pan¨Aacfv2197H Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…oods." 4. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 disregarding the ratio of judgment laid down in the case of CIT vs. Mohd. Mohtran Farooqui, 259 ITR 132 and K.P. Madhusudhan, 251 ITR 33, relied upon by the Ld. AO." 2. Brief facts of the case are that while passing the assessment order 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 28.02.2011 for assessment year under consideration, the assessing officer (AO) made addition of Rs.33,261/- being 25% of the purchases shown from M/s Girnar Sales Corporation and Vaishali Ente…

City Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai

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

ITA 771/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 40

…cordingly, by placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Dr. Mohd. Abdul Qadir (2003) 206 ITR 650 and also on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mohd. Mohtram Farooqui (2003) 259 ITR 132, the Assessing Officer took the view that the penalty is leviable even on the income returned by the assessee. Accordingly, he levied minimum penalty of ` 1,39,336/- and ` 2,63,237/- respectively for A.Y. 2007-08 and 2008-09 u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The learned CIT(A) also confirmed the same by holding that explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) o…