CIT v. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd.

303 ITR 53High Court2008#913 most cited

What is CIT v. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. authority for?

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act is not leviable when an addition to income is made purely on an estimated basis, without any concrete evidence of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

116

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. · Section 271(1)(c) penalty · estimated addition · no penalty on estimate basis · concealment of income · inaccurate particulars · deletion of penalty · 271(1)(c) without concrete evidence · levy of penalty

Also reported as

171 Taxmann 320

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 274Section 133(6)Section 69A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 271(l)section 271(l)(c)penalty under section 271(1)(c)deletion of penaltyfurnishing inaccurate particulars of incomeconcealment of incomefurnishing inaccurate particularspenalty u/s 271(1)(c)section 271(1)levy of penaltysection 274section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing CIT v. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd.

Fancy Diamonds India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 962/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…penalty could be levied on estimated addition. In this regard, the co-ordinate bench has followed the decisions rendered in the following cases:- a) CIT vs Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries, 360 ITR 580 (Raj); b) CIT vs Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., 303 ITR 53 (P&H); and, c) CIT vs Subhash Trading Co. Ltd., 221 ITR 110 (Guj) 4. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed that penalty levied in these years on estimated addition may kindly be deleted. Fancy Diamonds India Pvt. Ltd. 5. The Ld. DR, on the contrary, supported the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We heard the rival contentions and perused the record…

Fancy Diamonds India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 961/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…penalty could be levied on estimated addition. In this regard, the co-ordinate bench has followed the decisions rendered in the following cases:- a) CIT vs Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries, 360 ITR 580 (Raj); b) CIT vs Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., 303 ITR 53 (P&H); and, c) CIT vs Subhash Trading Co. Ltd., 221 ITR 110 (Guj) 4. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed that penalty levied in these years on estimated addition may kindly be deleted. Fancy Diamonds India Pvt. Ltd. 5. The Ld. DR, on the contrary, supported the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We heard the rival contentions and perused the record…

M/S Ramnarain and Co., Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-17(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 347/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…e decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries reported as 360 ITR 580, the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. reported as 303 ITR 53 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. 5 ITA 347/Mum/2023 M/s Ramanarain And Company reported as 221 ITR 110. It is observed that all the above mentioned decisions have reiterated the proposition that the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied in case where the addition is made on estimated basi…

Machinfabrik, Mumbai vs. Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department, Mumbai

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

ITA 57/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 133Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…ecord of M/s. Arihant Steel both under MVAT and IT proceedings. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ravail Singh & Co. [2002] 254 ITR 191 (P & H), CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. [2008] 303 ITR 53 (SC) and the decision of the Pune Tribunal in the case of Laxman Trimbak Gule vs. ITO (in ITA No. 348/Pune/2018 vide order dated 05.04.2021), wherein it was held that no penalty can be levied in case of addition made on the basis of estimate. The assessee further submitted that the assessee choose not to challenge the assessment order in order…

Mukesh Saligram Sharda, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 1(2) Kalyan, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1908/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…so after taking into consideration the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries 360 ITR 580; the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd 303 ITR 53 (P&H); and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Subhsh Trading Co Ltd 221 ITR 110 (Guj), we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned penalty levied on estimated addition. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 5. the facts and circumstances of the issue in this appeal are identical to the facts and…

Mukesh Saligram Sharda, Mumbai vs. ITO WD1 (2), Kalyan

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1907/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…so after taking into consideration the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries 360 ITR 580; the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd 303 ITR 53 (P&H); and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Subhsh Trading Co Ltd 221 ITR 110 (Guj), we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned penalty levied on estimated addition. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 5. the facts and circumstances of the issue in this appeal are identical to the facts and…

United Gems, Mumbai vs. NFAC, DCIT- 19 (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2304/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm United Gems Nfac, Dcit-19(3), Ge-9010, G Block, Bharat Diamond Mumbai Vs. Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 050 Pan/Gir No. Aaafu 4527 G (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi Revenue By : Shri Vranda U. Matkari Date Of Hearing : 01.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.01.2023

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkari
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 4

…decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries reported as 360 ITR 580, the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. reported as 303 ITR 53 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. reported as 221 ITR 110. It is observed that all the above mentioned decisions have reiterated the proposition that the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied in case where the addition is made on estimated basis. It is evident that there are plethora of oth…

M/S V.K. Ispat & Alloys, Mumbai vs. ITO-17(3)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 2325/MUM/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkarni
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries reported as 360 ITR 580, the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. reported as 303 ITR 53 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. reported as 221 ITR 110. It is observed that all the above mentioned decisions have reiterated the proposition that the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied in case where the addition is made on estimated basis. It is evident that there are plethora of…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 234/CTK/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…by the ld. CIT(A) as no conclusive proof was available and no penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., reported in [2008] 303 ITR 53 (Punjab & Haryana), wherein it was held that the addition to income was based on estimation that there was no 4 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 evidence on concealment of income and consequently penalty could not be imposed. Ld. AR further placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Subhash Trading Co., reported…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 233/CTK/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…by the ld. CIT(A) as no conclusive proof was available and no penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., reported in [2008] 303 ITR 53 (Punjab & Haryana), wherein it was held that the addition to income was based on estimation that there was no 4 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 evidence on concealment of income and consequently penalty could not be imposed. Ld. AR further placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Subhash Trading Co., reported…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 202/CTK/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…by the ld. CIT(A) as no conclusive proof was available and no penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., reported in [2008] 303 ITR 53 (Punjab & Haryana), wherein it was held that the addition to income was based on estimation that there was no 4 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 evidence on concealment of income and consequently penalty could not be imposed. Ld. AR further placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Subhash Trading Co., reported…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 201/CTK/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…by the ld. CIT(A) as no conclusive proof was available and no penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., reported in [2008] 303 ITR 53 (Punjab & Haryana), wherein it was held that the addition to income was based on estimation that there was no 4 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 evidence on concealment of income and consequently penalty could not be imposed. Ld. AR further placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Subhash Trading Co., reported…

S.M.Enterprisera, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 200/CTK/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…by the ld. CIT(A) as no conclusive proof was available and no penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., reported in [2008] 303 ITR 53 (Punjab & Haryana), wherein it was held that the addition to income was based on estimation that there was no 4 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 evidence on concealment of income and consequently penalty could not be imposed. Ld. AR further placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Subhash Trading Co., reported…

S M Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 199/CTK/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…by the ld. CIT(A) as no conclusive proof was available and no penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., reported in [2008] 303 ITR 53 (Punjab & Haryana), wherein it was held that the addition to income was based on estimation that there was no 4 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 evidence on concealment of income and consequently penalty could not be imposed. Ld. AR further placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Subhash Trading Co., reported…

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

…Tax Act, 1961 therefore no penalty could be levied. (ii) Poonam Mable Pvt Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2013) 157 TTJ 59 (Jodh) (iIi) CIT Vs. Haryana Warehousing Corporation (2009) 314 ITR 215 (P&H) (iv) CIT Vs Sangur Vanaspati Mills Ltd (2008) 303 ITR 53 (P & H) (v) CIT Vs Jagabandhu Prasanna Kumar Ruplal Sen Poddar (1982) 133 ITR 156 (Cal.) (vi) CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) 11. Imposition of penalty is unlawful: - It is submitted that in this case the Learned Assessing Officer first levied penalty u/s 271AAB(1)(c) @ 30% vide order dated 15.09.2017 imposi…

Scorditte Stainless India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 5(3) (1), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 to 3 raised by the Appellant are allowed

ITA 2002/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied where additions are made on estimate. [Re: CIT Vs. Krishi Tyre Re-trading & Rubber Industries 360 ITR 580(Raj.), CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Company 221 ITR 110 (Guj.), CIT Vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. 303 ITR 53 (P&H)]. 5. We further find that the notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 18.03.2015 and the subsequent notice issued under section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 15.03.2019 falls short of the legal requirement to be a valid notice for levy of penalty. The first notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is in Perfor…

Dilawar Shaikh, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 935/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.933 To 935/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 Dilawar Shaikh, Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Super Profiles Pvt. Ltd., 13-A, Parvati Industrial Estate, Pune – Satara Road, Pune-411026. Pan : Aljps3300F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. D. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessees Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Commonly Dated 23.032018 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.933/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri S. D. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…by the Assessing Officer was restricted to 10% of such bogus purchases by this Tribunal (supra) which means that the assessment of income was made on estimate basis. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., 303 ITR 53 (P&H) held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable in case the addition made is based on the estimate basis. Similar view also taken by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ravail Singh & Co., 254 ITR 191, Harigopal Singh vs. CIT, 258 ITR 85 and CIT v. Dhillon Rice Mills, 256 ITR 447. 13. The decision of the Hon’ble Pun…

Dilawar Shaikh, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 934/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.933 To 935/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 Dilawar Shaikh, Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Super Profiles Pvt. Ltd., 13-A, Parvati Industrial Estate, Pune – Satara Road, Pune-411026. Pan : Aljps3300F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. D. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessees Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Commonly Dated 23.032018 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.933/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri S. D. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…by the Assessing Officer was restricted to 10% of such bogus purchases by this Tribunal (supra) which means that the assessment of income was made on estimate basis. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., 303 ITR 53 (P&H) held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable in case the addition made is based on the estimate basis. Similar view also taken by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ravail Singh & Co., 254 ITR 191, Harigopal Singh vs. CIT, 258 ITR 85 and CIT v. Dhillon Rice Mills, 256 ITR 447. 13. The decision of the Hon’ble Pun…

Dilawar Shaikh, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 933/PUN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.933 To 935/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 Dilawar Shaikh, Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Super Profiles Pvt. Ltd., 13-A, Parvati Industrial Estate, Pune – Satara Road, Pune-411026. Pan : Aljps3300F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. D. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessees Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Commonly Dated 23.032018 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.933/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri S. D. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…by the Assessing Officer was restricted to 10% of such bogus purchases by this Tribunal (supra) which means that the assessment of income was made on estimate basis. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., 303 ITR 53 (P&H) held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable in case the addition made is based on the estimate basis. Similar view also taken by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ravail Singh & Co., 254 ITR 191, Harigopal Singh vs. CIT, 258 ITR 85 and CIT v. Dhillon Rice Mills, 256 ITR 447. 13. The decision of the Hon’ble Pun…

Prabhulal Kalji Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO -19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 745/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.745/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) Prabhulal Kalji Doshi, Room No.65, Moti Mention, 5Th Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai 400 004 Pan: Adwpd-9204-C ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. I.T.O 19(2)(5), 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai 400 051. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : None ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri R.A.Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/06/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.A.Dhyani
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…360 ITR 580 has held that where addition is made purely on estimate basis, no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable. Similar view has been expressed by Ho’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. reported as 303 ITR 53. The Hon’ble High Court approving the order of Tribunal held that when the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. The 4 Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. reported as 221 ITR 110 has taken a similar…