CIT v. Ravail Singh & Co.

254 ITR 191High Court2002#3665 most cited

What is CIT v. Ravail Singh & Co. authority for?

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied if additions to income are made on an estimated basis without concrete evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ravail Singh & Co. · section 271(1)(c) · concealment of income · inaccurate particulars · penalty levy · estimated assessment · additions on estimate · no concrete evidence · Punjab and Haryana High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 133(6)Section 148Section 250Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

furnishing inaccurate particularsconcealment of incomepenalty u/s 271(1)(c)section 274levy of penaltysection 271(1)section 271section 271(1)(c)section 27section 250nfacbusiness

Judgments citing CIT v. Ravail Singh & Co.

ACIT 15(3), Mumbai vs. Tirupati Corporation, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3066/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM ITA No.3066/Mum/2014 & 3067/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2007-08:) ACIT 15(3), Vs. M/s. Tirupati Corporation T.No.122, Matru Mandir 7, Neelkanth Plaza, Plot 1st Floor, Tardeo Road No.53, Sector – 40, Mumbai – 400 007 Nerul, Navi Mumbai – 400 708 PAN/GIR No. AAEFT1636R Appellant) Respondent) .. Revenue by Shri V. Junstin Assessee by Shri Nilesh Joshi Date of Hearing 18/10/2017 Date of Pronouncement 12/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): These are the appeals filed by the Revenue against the order…

ACIT, Muzaffarnagar vs. M/S the Ganga Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Muzaffarnagar

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6174/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2009-10

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

…tio of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, which held as under. “We have heard counsel for the appellant and have gone through the impugned order. The order passed by the ITAT is based upon two decisions of this Court in CIT vs. Ravail Singh and Co. (2002) 254 ITR 191 and Harigopal Singh vs. CIT(2002) 258 ITR 85. In both these decisions, this Court has held that in order to attract clause (c ) of section 271(1) of the Act, it is necessary that there must be concealment by the assessee of the particulars of his income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. The provisions of section 271(1)(c ) o…

M/S Amminabhavi Brothers, Dharwad vs. ITO, Hubli

In the result, all five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 955/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Balaram P. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. K. Biju JCIT (DR)
Section 271

…additions are made by the A. O. and on such estimated additions, no penalty is justified. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Ravail Singh & Co. as reported in 254 ITR 191. 5. As against this, learned DR of the revenue supported the Penalty order and order of CIT (A). He also submitted that as per Para 11 of the penalty order for A. Y. 2004 – 05, it is noted that the assessee did not file return of income and therefore, there is concealment of turnover and there is Books of Account and therefore, there is no option…

M/S Amminabhavi Brothers, Dharwad vs. ITO, Hubli

In the result, all five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 954/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Balaram P. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. K. Biju JCIT (DR)
Section 271

…additions are made by the A. O. and on such estimated additions, no penalty is justified. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Ravail Singh & Co. as reported in 254 ITR 191. 5. As against this, learned DR of the revenue supported the Penalty order and order of CIT (A). He also submitted that as per Para 11 of the penalty order for A. Y. 2004 – 05, it is noted that the assessee did not file return of income and therefore, there is concealment of turnover and there is Books of Account and therefore, there is no option…

M/S Amminabhavi Brothers, Dharwad vs. ITO, Hubli

In the result, all five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 953/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Balaram P. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. K. Biju JCIT (DR)
Section 271

…additions are made by the A. O. and on such estimated additions, no penalty is justified. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Ravail Singh & Co. as reported in 254 ITR 191. 5. As against this, learned DR of the revenue supported the Penalty order and order of CIT (A). He also submitted that as per Para 11 of the penalty order for A. Y. 2004 – 05, it is noted that the assessee did not file return of income and therefore, there is concealment of turnover and there is Books of Account and therefore, there is no option…

M/S Amminabhavi Brothers, Dharwad vs. ITO, Hubli

In the result, all five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 952/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Balaram P. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. K. Biju JCIT (DR)
Section 271

…additions are made by the A. O. and on such estimated additions, no penalty is justified. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Ravail Singh & Co. as reported in 254 ITR 191. 5. As against this, learned DR of the revenue supported the Penalty order and order of CIT (A). He also submitted that as per Para 11 of the penalty order for A. Y. 2004 – 05, it is noted that the assessee did not file return of income and therefore, there is concealment of turnover and there is Books of Account and therefore, there is no option…

M/S Amminabhavi Brothers, Dharwad vs. ITO, Hubli

In the result, all five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 951/BANG/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Balaram P. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. K. Biju JCIT (DR)
Section 271

…additions are made by the A. O. and on such estimated additions, no penalty is justified. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Ravail Singh & Co. as reported in 254 ITR 191. 5. As against this, learned DR of the revenue supported the Penalty order and order of CIT (A). He also submitted that as per Para 11 of the penalty order for A. Y. 2004 – 05, it is noted that the assessee did not file return of income and therefore, there is concealment of turnover and there is Books of Account and therefore, there is no option…

Sushil Chhatrabhuj Raheja, Mumbai vs. ACIT 25(1), Mumbai

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

ITA 1375/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)Section 37

…alleged bogus purchases. It was argued that no penalty is leviable on the addition made on the basis of estimation/ad hoc basis. In support of the submission the ld AR of the assessee relied upon the following decision; (i) CIT Versus Ravail Singh & Company 254 ITR 191(P&H), (ii) Harigopal Vs CIT 258 ITR 85 (P&H HC), (iii) ITO Vs Bombaywala Readymade Store[2015]230Taxman 313(Guj H C), (iv) Naresh Chand Aggarwal Versus CIT 357 ITR 515 (All HC), (v) DCIT Versus Manohar Manak ITA 5586/Mumbai/2015, (vi) Yashraj Films Pvt Ltd Versus ACIT ITA 7519/Mumbai/ 2013, (vii) Sarvesh Mercantile Private Ltd Vs ACIT ITA 6040/M/…

ACIT, Cir-40, Kolkata vs. M/S Deepak Construction Co., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 179/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…which is reproduced herein below: 6. We have heard counsel for the appellant and have gone through the impugned order. The order passed by the Tribunal is based upon two decisions of this Court in CIT vs. Ravail Singh & Co. (2002) 173 CTR (P&H) 429 : (2002) 254 ITR 191 (P&H) and Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 177 CTR (P&H) 580 : (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H). In both these decisions, this Court has held that in order to attract cl. (c) of s. 271(1) of the Act, it is necessary that there must be concealment by the assessee of the particulars of his income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. The pro…

Sri Harjit Singh Sall, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-50(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 576/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…e argued that the Tribunal restricted the agriculture income at Rs.10,00,000/- on estimation and penalty cannot be imposed on the basis of estimation and relied on the decisions in the cases of Hari Gopal reported in 258 ITR 85 (P&H), Ravail Singh reported in 254 ITR 191 (P&H) and Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd reported in 303 ITR 53 (P&H) for such proposition and placed on record at page 64 of the paper book. 9. On the contrary, the Ld.DR submits that the assessee could not produce any explanation either in assessment proceedings or penalty proceedings before the AO and relied on the orders of the authorities belo…

Sonali A. Shah, Mumbai vs. I.T.O 14(3) (3), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5720/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2007-08 Mrs. Sonali A. Shah, I.T.O. – 14(3), Raj Parashar, Earnest House, 3Rd Floor, Nariman Point, Flat No.301-2-3, Vs. Mumbai – 21 95/F, Indranarayan Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Agdps 6844D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Aditya R. Ajgaonkar, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Aditya R. Ajgaonkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 144Section 145Section 271(1)(c)

…al to the High Court the Hon’ble High Court has held as under: “6. We have heard counsel for the appellant and have gone through the impugned order. 7. The order passed by the ITAT is based upon two decisions of this Court in CIT v. Ravail Singh & Co. [2002] 254 ITR 191 1 and Hari Gopal Singh v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85 2. In both these decisions, this Court has held that in order to attract clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act, it is necessary that there must be concealment by the assessee of the particulars of his income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. The provisions of section 271(1)(c…

Pranab Tulsidas Shende, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 15(3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6377/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri K.Mohandas
Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…ons with the creditors. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mahendra Singh Khedla, 71 DTR 189, Delhi High Court in the case of Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., 343 ITR 434, P&H High Court in the case of Ravail Singh & Co., 254 ITR 191 and Chattishgarh High Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Jain, 325 ITR 378. In support of the proposition that addition u/s.41(1) cannot be made if the liability is recognised in the books of account, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bhogilal Ramjibhai Atara, 222 Taxman 313, Delhi High Court in the ca…