CIT v. Smt. Chandrakanta

205 ITR 607High Court1992#3658 most cited

What is CIT v. Smt. Chandrakanta authority for?

A penalty can be levied on the ground that only a minimum amount was imposed as penalty, and concealment penalty can be levied based on an estimated addition. Explanations to Section 271(1)(c) raise a presumption of deliberate concealment.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Smt. Chandrakanta · 205 ITR 607 · penalty · concealment penalty · estimated addition · Section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing CIT v. Smt. Chandrakanta

S4 Interior, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 25(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4422/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Ravish Soodm/S S4 Interior, Assisstant Commissioner Of Income A-301E, Sumit Samarth Tax-25(3), Arcade, Tatya Tope Nagar, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Vs. Near Railway Station, Bandra Kurla Complex, Goregaon (West), Mumbai Mumbai- 400062 Pan – Abgfs7239E Assessee Revenue Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, A.R Revenue By: Shri Nishant Samaiya, D.R Date Of Hearing: 24.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2018 O R D E R Per Ravish Sood, Jm The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For A.Y. 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-32, Mumbai, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O Under Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘Act’), Dated 23.09.2015. The Assessee Assailing The Order Of The Cit(A) Has Raised Before Us The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Under The Facts & In Law, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs. 430,707/- Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 1.1 The Hon’Ble Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Without Appreciating The Submission Made By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Samaiya, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…e where addition was made on an estimate basis. In support of his aforesaid contention reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: (i). CIT Vs. Kalindi Rail Nirman Engg. Ltd. (2014) 365 ITR 304 (Del) (ii). CIT Vs. Smt. CHandrakanta (1994) 205 ITR 607 (MP) (iii). Addl. CIT Vs. Lakshmi Industries & Cold Storage (P) Ltd. (1984) 146 ITR 492 (All) (iv). CIT Vs. Md. Warasat Hussain (1988) 171 ITR 405 (Patna) (v). A.M Shah & Co. Vs. CIT (1999) 238 ITR 415 (Guj) (vi). CIT Vs. S. Krishnaswamy & Sons (1996) 219 ITR 157 (Mad) (vii). CIT Vs. Swarup Cold Storage & General Mills (1982) 136 ITR 435 (All) (v…

Sri.Joy K.V., Trichur vs. The ACIT, Cir-2(1), RG-2, Trichur

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

ITA 207/COCH/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Jul 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.207 /Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2000-01 Shri K.V. Joy, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Koonan House, Mission Quarters, Income-Tax, Circle-2(1), Thrissur-680 01. Range-2, Thrissur [Pan : Aqspk 9358H]

Section 10Section 271(1)(c)

…come which was worked out to Rs.4600/- The contention of the Ld. DR is that even though the income was estimated, the penalty could be levied and for this purpose he relied on the following High Court judgments: 1)CIT(Addl.) vs. Smt. Chandrakanta and Another (205 ITR 607) (MP) 2) A.M. Shah & Company vs. CIT 238 ITR 415 (Guj.) 4.1 The addition was estimated by the Assessing Officer on the amount deposited into the assessee’s bank account. The Assessing Officer adopted the flat rate of 0.25% as income of the assessee on the total deposits made in his bank account. The Assessing Officer did not record the finding…

Girdhar Gopal Lahoti, Jaipur vs. ITO, Kishangarh

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

ITA 682/JPR/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2018AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)&For Respondent: Shri R. A. Verma (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 211Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)(a)Section 69A

…extent the assessee has again concealed the particulars of income and the addition made by the AO was sustained by this Tribunal. The ld. DR has relied upon the orders of the authorities below as well as the decisions as under:- • CIT vs. Smt. Chandrakanta 205 ITR 607 • Shushil Kumar Sarad Kumar vs. CIT 232 ITR 588 • A.M. Shah & Co. vs. CIT 238 ITR 415 6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. In the reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 8 Shri Girdhar Gopal Lahoti vs. ITO 147 of the Act the AO made a total addition of Rs. 22,45,222/- on account of three issu…

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

…e present case which are identical in all years, penalty is justified. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- a) CIT vs. S. Krishnaswamy & Sons, 219 ITR 157 (Mad.), b) Sushilkumar Sharadkumar vs. CIT, 232 ITR 588 (All.), c) CIT vs. Smt. Chandrakanta, 205 ITR 607 (MP). 6. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that there is no dispute that the addition on which penalty is imposed is an estimated addition in each year. In the light these facts, first we examine the applicability of judgments cited by both sides. Learned AR of the assessee has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Ha…

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

…e present case which are identical in all years, penalty is justified. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- a) CIT vs. S. Krishnaswamy & Sons, 219 ITR 157 (Mad.), b) Sushilkumar Sharadkumar vs. CIT, 232 ITR 588 (All.), c) CIT vs. Smt. Chandrakanta, 205 ITR 607 (MP). 6. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that there is no dispute that the addition on which penalty is imposed is an estimated addition in each year. In the light these facts, first we examine the applicability of judgments cited by both sides. Learned AR of the assessee has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Ha…

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

…e present case which are identical in all years, penalty is justified. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- a) CIT vs. S. Krishnaswamy & Sons, 219 ITR 157 (Mad.), b) Sushilkumar Sharadkumar vs. CIT, 232 ITR 588 (All.), c) CIT vs. Smt. Chandrakanta, 205 ITR 607 (MP). 6. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that there is no dispute that the addition on which penalty is imposed is an estimated addition in each year. In the light these facts, first we examine the applicability of judgments cited by both sides. Learned AR of the assessee has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Ha…

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

…e present case which are identical in all years, penalty is justified. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- a) CIT vs. S. Krishnaswamy & Sons, 219 ITR 157 (Mad.), b) Sushilkumar Sharadkumar vs. CIT, 232 ITR 588 (All.), c) CIT vs. Smt. Chandrakanta, 205 ITR 607 (MP). 6. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that there is no dispute that the addition on which penalty is imposed is an estimated addition in each year. In the light these facts, first we examine the applicability of judgments cited by both sides. Learned AR of the assessee has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Ha…

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

…e present case which are identical in all years, penalty is justified. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- a) CIT vs. S. Krishnaswamy & Sons, 219 ITR 157 (Mad.), b) Sushilkumar Sharadkumar vs. CIT, 232 ITR 588 (All.), c) CIT vs. Smt. Chandrakanta, 205 ITR 607 (MP). 6. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that there is no dispute that the addition on which penalty is imposed is an estimated addition in each year. In the light these facts, first we examine the applicability of judgments cited by both sides. Learned AR of the assessee has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Ha…

Taurus Transport, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 13(2), Mumbai

The Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4979/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271(1)(c)Section 51

…render was made to buy peace with the Department, therefore, the penalty may be deleted. On the other hand, the Ld. DR contended that penalty can be levied even on a estimate basis for which reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs Smt. Chandrakanta, 205 ITR 607 (MP), CIT vs S. Krishnaswamy & Sons, 219 ITR 157, A.M. Shah & Co. vs CIT, 238 ITR 415 (Guj.) and CIT vs Mohammad Warasat Hussain, 177 ITR 405 (Pat.). 3.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm, declared income of `6,24,135/- in…

Taurus Transport, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 13(2), Mumbai

The Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4978/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271(1)(c)Section 51

…render was made to buy peace with the Department, therefore, the penalty may be deleted. On the other hand, the Ld. DR contended that penalty can be levied even on a estimate basis for which reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs Smt. Chandrakanta, 205 ITR 607 (MP), CIT vs S. Krishnaswamy & Sons, 219 ITR 157, A.M. Shah & Co. vs CIT, 238 ITR 415 (Guj.) and CIT vs Mohammad Warasat Hussain, 177 ITR 405 (Pat.). 3.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm, declared income of `6,24,135/- in…

DCIT 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Allied Instruments P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 759/MUM/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodthe Dcit,12(1)(1), R.No.223, 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Allied Instruments Pvt. Ltd., 30, Cd Govt. Industrial Estate, Kandivali (W), Mumbai 400 067 Pan: Aaaca 1032F .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ajai Pratap SinghFor Respondent: Shri Sanjiv M. Shah
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80HSection 80ISection 80l

…recording of bogus transaction in order to display income at a much lower figure amounts to deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of Sec. 271(1)(c). The Hon’ble MP High Court in the case of Addl. CIT Vs Smt. Chandrakanta 205 ITR 607 has held where the assessment is based on estimate penalty can be imposed u/s. 271(1)©. Similar view was also taken by 5 the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of R.B. Shree Ram Durgaprasad N. Fathechand Narinhas Vs CIT 168 ITR 619. Therefore on the given facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessing office was just…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Shri Navneet Gupta, Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 445/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: None PresentFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

…d circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) erred in observing in para 3.4 of his order that no penalty is leviable in the case of additions which are made on estimated income by ignoring the decision in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Chandrakantha and another (MP) 205 ITR 607; Addl. CIT vs. Lakshmi Industries and Cold Storage Co. Ltd. (All) 146 ITR 492; CIT vs. Md. Warasat Hussain (Patna) 171 ITR 405; AM Shah & Co. Vs. CIT (Guj) 238 ITR 415.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed the return income of Rs. 28,28,749/- which included the short term capital gain of Rs. 2,33,000/- The case was tak…