CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals

M/S. Sheela Foadm (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Sheela Foam (P.) Ltd., C-55, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Preet Vihar, Vikas Marg, Delhi Tax, Circle-8(1), New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaacs0189B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. Ajay Vohra & Gaurav Jain, Advocates; Ms. Bhavita Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 02.06.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 17/08/1012 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xi, New Delhi, For Assessment Year 2004-05 In Respect Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) By The Assessing Officer. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: 1. That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Holding That The Order Dated 27.03.2009 Passed By The Assessing Officer Levying Penalty Under Section 271(1 )(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Was Beyond Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Void Ab Initio. 1.1 That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Holding That The Penalty Order Under Section 271(1 )(C) Was Beyond Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Void Ab-Initio, In As Much As The Same Was Initiated On Issues For Which No Prima Facie Satisfaction, Qua Concealment/Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income, Was Discernible From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. Without Prejudice 2. That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law

…ntative also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT versus reliance Petroproducts Private Limited 322 ITR 158. The learned AR, relying on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S.A.S. Pharmaceutical, (2011) 355 ITR 259, submitted that no penalty on suo motu disallowance of inadvertent/wrong claim be levied. 4.2 On the contrary, learned Sr. Departmental Representative relying on the orders of the authorities below submitted that notice under section 143(2) was issued to the assessee for scrutiny of the case and then only the assessee realized mistake and no revi…

Ms. Meeta Gutgutia, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2008-09 Meeta Gutgutia, Vs Acit, J-238, Sainik Farms, Central Cirle-10, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Afdpg2774B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ridhi Karan Aggarwal Respondent By: Shri P.Damkanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.03.2016

…s start before the expiry of due date u/s 153(1) but return was also submitted in compliance thereof before the expiry of the prescribed time limit u/s 153(1). The Ld. AR also submitted that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals 335 ITR 259 (Del) in Para 15 and 16 has held that concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of I.T.A. No. 327/Del/2014 Assessment year 2008-09 inaccurate particular of income by the assessee has to be in the income-tax return filed by it. Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has to be construed strictly. He submitted that unless it is found that there is a…

ACIT, Faridabad vs. M/S. Crazy Developers (P) Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

…not be any question of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and relied upon the judgement cited as CIT Vs Suresh Chandra Mittal, 251 ITR 09 (S.C.) and CIT Vs Harh Talwar (2011), 335 ITR 200 (Del.) and CIT Vs SAS Pharmaceuticals (2011) 335 ITR 259 (Del.). 4 7. The sole question arises for determination is, “as to whether Ld. CIT(A) has erred in quashing the penalty of Rs.13,46,400/- imposed by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act”. 8. We have heard Authorized Representatives of the parties, gone through the material placed on record in the light of facts and circumstances of the case and ord…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Usha International Ltd

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

…ncing with the filing of the original return and ending with the assessment may be taken as relevant for considering the liability of the assessee for penalty. 20. In the judgment by a Division Bench of this Court in CIT v. S.A.S. Pharmaceuticals, (2011) 335 ITR 259 the factual position was different. A survey was carried out at the business premises and godown of the assessee on 06.01.2003 during which certain discrepancies in cash, stock and renovation details were found. The assessee surrendered an amount of `88.14 lakhs during the survey on account of the discrepancies. However, at the time of the…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Usha International Ltd

…ncing with the filing of the original return and ending with the assessment may be taken as relevant for considering the liability of the assessee for penalty. 20. In the judgment by a Division Bench of this Court in CIT v. S.A.S. Pharmaceuticals, (2011) 335 ITR 259 the factual position was different. A survey was carried out at the business premises and godown of the assessee on 06.01.2003 during which certain discrepancies in cash, stock and renovation details were found. The assessee surrendered an amount of `88.14 lakhs during the survey on account of the discrepancies. However, at the time of the…