How many judgments cite CIT v. Sidhartha Enterprises?

23 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Sidhartha Enterprises (322 ITR 80), spanning 2011 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Sidhartha Enterprises come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 133(6), Section 145(3), Section 148, Section 250, Section 271(1)(c), Section 274.

CIT v. Sidhartha Enterprises

322 ITR 80High Court2010#5034 most cited

What is CIT v. Sidhartha Enterprises authority for?

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is imposed only when there is a deliberate default and not a mere mistake. The furnishing of inaccurate particulars must be a deliberate attempt to evade tax, not just a mistake.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sidhartha Enterprises · section 271(1)(c) · penalty for concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · deliberate default · mere mistake · evasion of tax

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 148 Section 250 Section 271(1)(c)Section 274 Section 44AB Section 44AE

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 271aaa section 274 concealment of income penalty u/s 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars penalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of income section 271(1)section 271 section 271(1)(c)reason to believe section 27

Judgments citing CIT v. Sidhartha Enterprises

Jagtar Singh Brar Prop. Jagtar Singh Sadhu Singh, Bagapurana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Moga

In the result, the penalty imposed u/s 271(1) (c) amounting to Rs

ITA 70/ASR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Abhinav Vijh, C.A

Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…erson was calculated and designed to prevent discovery of the act with which he is charged. His act must be misleading, false or deceptive." 11. He further referred to the jurisdictional high court decision in the case of CIT vs Sidhartha Enterprise [ 2010] 322 ITR 80 (P & H), to submit that it has been held: “In the case of CIT Vs. Sidhartha Enterprises [2010] 322 ITR 80 (P&H) it has been held that it cannot be said that in every case where particulars of income are inaccurate, penalty must follow Penalty is imposed only when there is some element of deliberate default and not a mere mistake the finding have…

Superfine Hotels Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1502/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena, CIT

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 35A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,"B" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठौड़ कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 1502/JPR/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 Superfine Hotels Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Floor, J-13, Lal Kothi Yojna, Nehru Sahakar Marge, jaipur. बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle6, Jaipur. स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AALCS0201P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assess…

Sms Concast Ag, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-3(1)(2) International Taxation, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1444/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Deval, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80GSection 80HSection 80I

…mchand Ltd: 329 ITR 572 9. Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Deep Tools (P) Ltd: 274 ITR 603 10. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Dhanabal: 309 ITR 268 11. Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sidhartha Enterprises: 322 ITR 80 12. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Deban International Ltd.: 2 taxmann.com 140 (Delhi) 13. Sanghi vs. ACIT: 125 ITR 184 Copy of decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Sohanlal G. 14. Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of Kalpalatha vs. ACIT: 44 TTJ 225. 6. The Ld. DR has submitted that the notice issued by AO for initiation t…

Late Smt Shanti Devi (Through Chander Mohan Merwah As Approved Representative), Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-7, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 509/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…7397/Mum/2018 vide order dated 28.03.2019 held that no penalty can be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) when there was no willful concealment and mistake involved only a human error. 2. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sidhartha Enterprises (322 ITR 80) wherein it was held that for penalty for concealment to be levied, there must be some element of deliberate default. Penalty cannot be levied where as wrong claim is made by mistake. Late Smt. Shanti Devi 3. The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sania Mirza in ITA No. 526 of 2011 order dated 09.02.2012, held that addition o…

Late Smt Shanti Devi (Through Chander Mohan Merwah As Approved Representative), Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-7, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 508/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Late Smt Shanti Devi (Through Chander Mohan Merwah As Approved Representative), Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-7, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 507/DEL/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Late Smt Shanti Devi (Through Chander Mohan Merwah As Approved Representative), Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-7, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 506/DEL/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

J C Antiques and Crafts, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle-7, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…except the surrender made by the assessee himself. When no concealment was ever detected by the survey team or by the Assessing Officer, no penalty was imposable. Recently, the hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Sidhartha Enterprises [2010] 322 ITR 80 (P&H), vide order dated July 14, 2009, held after considering the decision of the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC) that the judgment of the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC) cannot be read as laying down that in ev…

Mohd. Jamal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 62(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8927/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Jain, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. D. R

Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

…n law in confirming the penalty because no penalty, for concealment can be levied on the income which has been assessed on estimate basis. Reference made to (a) CIT vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 316 (Del), (b) CIT vs. Siddhartha Enterprises [2010] 322 ITR 80 (P & H), (c) CIT vs. Whiteline Chemicals [2014] 360 ITR 385 (Guj), (d) Shri Radhey Shyam vs. ITO [ITA No. 5268/Del/2015 decided on 31/10/2017 by ITAT Delhi]; 7. That without prejudice to the foregoing grounds, the Order passed by the learned CIT (A) is bad inasmuch as the Order dated 02-02-2018 passed in the quantum assessment by the Hon’ble ITAT…

Shri Ajaybhai Ishwarlal Gogia, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (2) (5), Rajkot

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 176/RJT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-D.R

Section 2(47)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C

…two opinions are possible in respect of a certain transaction. In the instant case, there are divergent views whether capital gains can be levied in these set of facts. Secondly, the assessee submitted that as held in the case of CIT vs. Siddhartha Enterprise 322 ITR 80, unless there is deliberate default, penalty for concealment cannot be levied. Thirdly, the assessee submitted that since the appeal of the assessee against the quantum order of the ITAT stands admitted by the High Court, the issue is debatable one and therefore the penalty cannot be levied. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal against t…

The ACIT Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Chandrakant G Patel, Ahmedabad

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 799/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

…or a wrong claim of relief under section SOP were found to be decisions on the facts on which no question of law would arise as held in CIT v. Shahabad Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 73 (Punj. &Har.). In the case of CIT v. Sidhartha Enterprises [2010] 322 ITR 80 /[2009] 184 Tax/nan 460 (Punj. &Har.) it was held that "a wrong claim as business income of what should be treated as short term capital gains on the advice of the assessee's Counsel, could not be treated as an instance of deliberate default. In the case of Chandra Pal Bagga (supra) the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has held that when the assessee…

M/S Punjab Heritage & Tourism Promotion Board, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 647/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT

Section 11(2)

…suffer on account of the mistake of a counsel/accountant/auditor etc. stands well addressed legally. The assessee has relied upon the proposition of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Siddhartha Enterprises ( 322 ITR 80 (P&H); CIT Vs S. Dhanbal (309 ITR 268 (Del) and the oft quoted decision of the Apex Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. V CIT ( Civil Appeal 6924 2012 (SLP 10700 of 2009). However, before considering the position of law, it ITA 647 /CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 Page 8 of 8 is necessary to first address the facts since there is no f…

Sushil Kumar Bhati, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(4), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2819/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2819/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Sushil Kumar Bhati, Vs Income Tax Officer, H.No. 591, Sector-21B, Ward-2(4), Faridabad, Haryana Faridabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahfpb0420P Assessee By : Ms. Vanshika Taneja, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.05.2020

For Appellant: Ms. Vanshika Taneja, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 17(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 27(1)(c)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…racted and section 263 is not attracted in our case. It is very much apparent and not a concealment matter. Following eases are quoted in support of our sayins:- CIT vs. Sania Mirza [order dated 9/12/2012 in 1TA no. 526 of 2011, CIT vs. Sidhartha Enterprises 322 ITR 80, CIT vs. Pitambarads Dulichand 273 ITR 271….…” 6 Sushil Kumar Bhati 5. During the argument before us, the ld. AR reiterated the arguments taken up before the authorities below. The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT (A). 6. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. We find that the assessee…

M/S Just Dial Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 9(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6900/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri G. Manjunathajust Dial Ltd (Formerly Dcit-9(2) Known As Just Dial Pvt.Ltd.) Now Dcit 12(3)(1) M-501-B, Palm Court Room No.147B Complex, Above D-Mart Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Near Goregaon Sport Club, Mumbai-400 020 New Link Road, Malad (W) Mumbai-400 064 Pan: Aaca8049G Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah (Ar) Respondent By: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 04.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.04.2019

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (DR)

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

…le Apex Court in Pricewaterhouse Copers Pvt Ltd (PWC) Vs CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC), Bombay High Court Vs. Bennett Colemann & Co.Ltd. 259 CTR 383, CIT vs Somany Evergree Knits Ltd 352 ITR 592 (Bombay) and Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Siddharth Enterprises 322 ITR 80. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of AO. The Ld. DR further submits that had the case was not been selected for scrutiny the income would have escaped assessment, when the AO detected the particular the assessee has taken an excuse of 4 ITA No. 6900/Mum/2017- Just Dial Limited bona fide mistake. The Ld. DR fur…

Gangacharan, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3620/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3620/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Gangacharan Choudhary बिाम/ Ito 19(2)(3), Mumbai 140A, Vakola Bridge Society, Dhobi Ghat, Santacruz (E), V. Mumbai 400055 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aigpc2139N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar (Sr.DR)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

…rza (order dated 09.02.2012 in ITA no. 526 of 2011) 3. Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Pitambarads Dulichand reported at 273 ITR 271 4. Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Sidhartha Enterprises reported at 322 ITR 80 5. Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Shahbad Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. reported at 322 ITR 73. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Ltd. reported at 322 ITR 158 7. Mumbai-tribunal decision in the case of Skill Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT, 139 ITD 25 (Mum.) (Trib) 8. Hon’ble Delhi…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2239/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Sapra, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT (DR)

Section 271

…n, penalty cannot be imposed in view of the following case laws since making a claim which is not sustainable or is debatable does not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars: >- 322 ITR 158, CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court) >- 322 ITR 80, CIT vs. Sidhartha Enterprises (P & H High Court) 288ITR 670, CIT vs. Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd. (Jurisdictional Delhi H.C.) >- 359 ITR 101, CIT vs. DCM Ltd. (Jurisdictional Delhi HC) >- 335 ITR 558, CIT vs. Rubber Udyog Vikas Pvt. Ltd. (P&H High Court) >- 349 ITR 112, Karan Raghav Export P Ltd. vs. CIT (Jurisdictional Delhi H.C.) >- 2…

M/S. Jindal Steel & Power Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3052/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

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

…iculars in respect of aforesaid addition.” 7.6 Reliance was placed on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. v CIT 348 ITR 306 and jurisdictional High court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of CIT v Siddharta Enterprsies 322 ITR 80. Reliance in support was also drawn on the judgment of jurisdictional High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of CIT v Punjab Kesari Hosiery Factory 304 ITR 247 to contend that penalty is not leviable in case of bonafide commission in not accounting for certain stocks. 7.7 The learned counsel of the Revenue and the CIT DR relied upon the orde…

Om Sairam Developrs, Mumbai vs. ITO RG 25(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is hereby Allowed

ITA 257/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.257/M/13 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Om Sairam Developers Income Tax Officer 25(2)(4), बनाम/ A-401, Sweta Park, C-11, Pratyakshar Bhavan, Vs. 1St Floor, Daulat Nagar, Road No.2, Borivali (E), Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400066 Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafo8056G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Shiddaramappa K. Navar

Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 80I

…hich some are mentioned below i.e. T.Ashok Pai Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2007] 292 ITR 11 (SC), Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Somany Evergree Knits Ltd. [2013] 352 ITR 592 (Bombay High Court), Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sidhartha Enterprises [2010] 322 ITR 80 (P&H HC) and Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Karnataka High court). In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the law relied by the assessee we are of the view that when the case of the assessee is in connection with the correction of accounts on…

D.C.I.T.Cir - VIII, Kol, Kolkata vs. Shri Ram Chandra Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as stated above

ITA 1700/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Chhaparia,FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Md. S.S Alam, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)

…g of wrong claim is not at par with concealment or giving of inaccurate information, which may call for levy of penalty under section 271( 1) ( c) of the Act.” 5.1.2. Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of CIT vs. Sidhartha Enterprises (2010) 322 ITR 80 (P&H), wherein it has been held that: “We are unable to accept the submission. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharmendra Textiles Processors’case (supra) cannot be read as laying down that in every case where particulars of income are inaccurate, penalty must follow. What has been laid down is that qualitative difference between cri…

Virtuous Capital Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5647/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5647/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Virtuous Capital Limited, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 1101/1102, Tax 2(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M K Vs. Maithilli Signet Premises Chs, Road, Plot No.39/4, Sector 30/A, Mumbai-400020 Vashi Navi Mumbai--400705 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 111ASection 271(1)(c)

…reed for disallowance of the claim. The assessing officer levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal deleted the penalty by following the decisions rendered by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the following cases:- (a) Sidhdharth Enterprises (322 ITR 80)(P & H) (b) Arisudana Spinning Mills Ltd (326 ITR 429)(P&H) In the case of Sidhdharth Enterprises (supra), the Tribunal had deleted the penalty by holding that the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income was a silly mistake and not a deliberate attempt to evade tax. The High Court held that the view taken by the Tribunal could not be held t…