CIT v. Somany Evergree Knits Ltd.

352 ITR 592High Court2013#3806 most cited

What is CIT v. Somany Evergree Knits Ltd. authority for?

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed for a bona fide and inadvertent mistake made by the assessee or their Chartered Accountant while filing the return.

31

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Somany Evergreen Knits Ltd · 352 ITR 592 · penalty · section 271(1)(c) · bona fide mistake · inadvertent mistake · Chartered Accountant · bona fide and unintentional mistake

Judgments citing CIT v. Somany Evergree Knits Ltd.

DCIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1800/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1800/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Mrs. Vidisha Katra, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…c), relied on a host of judicial pronouncements, as under: (i) Price Waterhouse Cooper (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT-(2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) (ii) DIT Vs. Asia Attractive Dividend Stock Fund (2013) 35 taxmann.com 265 (Bom). (iii) CIT Vs. Somany Evergreen Knits Ltd. (2013) 352 ITR 592 (Bom) (iv) CIT Vs. Shri Hiralal Doshi (2016) 383 ITR 19 (Bom). (v) CIT Vs. Stoll India (P.) Ltd. (2013) 35 taxmann.com 263 (Bom). (vi) CIT Vs. Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 339 (Del). (vii) CIT Vs. Royale Manor Hotels & Ind. Ltd. (2014) 41 taxmann.com 491 (viii) DCIT Vs. Khanna Industrial Pipes (P.) Ltd. (2014) 35 ITR (T) 314 (Mum) (…

Rekha Bhupendra Dalal, Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD-II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3363/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singhrekha Bhupendra Dalal The Dcit, Osd-Ii, Bhupen Chambers, Ground Floor, Central Range-7, Vs. Dalal Street, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai. Pan: Aaupd0962E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi- AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274rSection 54Section 54F

…ce Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [(2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC)], Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. v/s. CIT – [(2012) 304 ITR 306 (SC)], DIT(IT) v/s. Asia Attractive Dividend Stock Fund- [2013) 35 taxmann.com 265 (Bom)], CIT v/s. Somany Evergreen Knits Ltd. [(2013) 352 ITR 592 (Bom)] and the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Meherjee Cassinath holdings Pvt. Ltd. v/s. ACIT in ITA No. 2555/Mum/2012 dated 28.04.2017. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of authorities below. The ld. DR for the Revenue further argued that the AO levied the penalty on both limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It w…

Pinstorm Technolgies P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4426/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Ms. Beena Subhash
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 3

…ntended to or attempted to either conceal its income or furnish inaccurate particulars. 21. Under these circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Calcutta High Court is set aside.” 13. In the case of CIT Vs. Somany Evergree Knits Ltd. [352 ITR 592], the Bombay High Court held as under : “7. We have heard the rival submissions. The Id. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the stand of the assessee as put forth before the revenue authorities. He further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Deep Tools Pvt. Ltd., 274 ITR 603(P&H), wherein it w…

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Kodak India P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1533/MUM/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2016AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.1533/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year :1997-98) Dcit-10(1), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Kodak India Pvt. Ltd., 6Th Floor, B-Wing, Vinay Bhavya Complex, 159A, Cst Road, Kalina, Santacruz, Mumbai - 400098 Pan/Gir No. Aaack2172J Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ition that mere offering of income will not exonerate the assessee from penalty proceedings. 7. On the other hand learned AR relied on the following decisions:- 1 Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (348 ITR 306)(SC) 2 CIT v. Somany Evergree Knits Ltd. (352 ITR 592)(Bom.) 3 CIT v. Bramhaputra Consortium Ltd. (2011-TIOL-470-HC- DEL- IT) 4 CIT v. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (259 CTR (Born.) 383) 5 CIT v. Glow Tech Steels P. Ltd. (280 ITR 133)(Guj.) 6 CIT v. Societex (24 taxmann.com 309) (Delhi) 7 DCIT v. Shahabad Co-op. Sugar Mills (129 TT] 92) (Chandigarh Trib.) 8 Dynatron Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (36 CCH 0110) (Mum…

Ashish Pal Singh Arneja, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3485/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2011-12 Ashish Pal Singh Arneja, Ito, Bh-45, Poorvi Shalimar Bagh, Vs. Ward-72(4), New Delhi. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Afipa6803L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca Department By : None Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2016 Order

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: None
Section 271(1)(c)

…Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC), has held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should be imposed for a bona fide mistake or a normal human error. Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Somany Evergree Knits Ltd. (2013) 352 ITR 592 (Bom). The ld. AR has also placed on record a copy of the order dated 27.7.2016 passed by the 3 Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Aditya Malla vs. ITO (ITA No.2457/Del/2016), in which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed because of the assessee omitting to include salary from his previous employer on which deduction of tax at source was made, came to be d…

Pmt Machines Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7526/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Patil (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 274

…was on account of mistake. The ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Krishna Sachdeva vs. DCIT in ITA No.4384/Del/2009 dated 31.03.2010 reported vide (2010) 29 CCH and the decision of Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Somany Evergree Knits Ltd. [2013] 352 ITR 592 (Bom). On the other hand, the Ld. DR for Revenue vehemently argued that the assessee has actively concealed the income and it was the work of AO, who had detected the income of assessee. Has the case been not selected for scrutiny, the Revenue would have been lost. The ld. DR for Revenue further argued that the ld. CIT(A) has categorically examin…

Kumar V. Vasani, Mumbai vs. ITO 32(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3119/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2009-10

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…see. It was explained that quantum addition was accepted by the assessee and no further appeal was filed. Reliance was placed upon the decision in Sir Shadilal Sugar General Mills & Ltd. vs CIT (1987) 168 ITR 705 (SC), CIT vs Somany Evergree Knits Ltd. (2013) 352 ITR 592 (Bom.), CIT vs S.L.N. Traders (2)(2012) 341 ITR 235(Karnataka) and CIT vs Careers Education & Infotech Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 336 ITR 257 (P & H). 2.1. On the other hand, the ld. DR, Ms. Mahua Sarkar, strongly defended the penalty order by contending that the assessee deposited cash in the accounts, the source of which was not explained by the assesse…

Shivam Steel & Tubes P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 5(3)

ITA 4691/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/4691/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Shivam Steel & Tubes Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-5(3) Unit No.264, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. A-Z, Industrial Premises Co.Op. Soc. Mumbai. Lower Parel,Mumbai-400 013. Pan:Aadcs 9345 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap-Dr Assessee By: Shri Jayesh Dadia सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 05.08.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 03.6.2014 Of Cit(A)-9 Mumbai, The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Steel Tubes & Furniture Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.9.2009 ,Declaring Total Income Rs.1.24Crores.The Assessing Officer(Ao)Completed The Assessment U/S. 143(3),On 5.12.2012,Determining Its Total Income At Rs.1.35Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं सी सी. एन एन. "साद "साद,"याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं सी सी एन एन "साद "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/4691/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/s. Shivam Steel & Tubes Pvt. Ltd. ACIT, Circle-5(3) Unit No.264, 2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. A-Z, Industrial Premi…

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)

…an legal inference adopted on the facts by the assessee but that cannot be a ground to hold that assessee has either concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v Somany Evergreen Knits Ltd. 352 ITR 592 has held as under: “The assessee-company had wrongly claimed excess depreciation and loss on sale of machine as revenue expenditure in return. During assessment proceedings, assessee itself pointed out mistake, which was claimed to be bonafide and inadvertent. Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income, whi…

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

…Assessment Year: 2006-07 there are catina of judgements passed by the courts of law out of which 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…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Arcotech Ltd (Formerly Sks Ltd.)

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/71/2013HC Delhi12 Sept 2013
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

…ITA No. 71/2013 Page 1 of 21 $~20. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 71/2013 Date of decision: 12th September, 2013. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III ..... Appellant Through Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus ARCOTECH LTD (FORMERLY SKS LTD.) ..... Respondent Through Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Mr. Saurabh Seth & Ms. Kanchan Yadav, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE…