CIT v. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd.

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Imi Alloys Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

…unal 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 Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd reported as 221 ITR 110 has taken a similar view in respect of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on estimated additions There are catena of decisions by different High Courts and various Benches of the Tribunal wherein penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on estimated addition has been held to be unsustainable.” 3. Here in this case, the ld. AO had applied GP…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Imi Alloys Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

…unal 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 Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd reported as 221 ITR 110 has taken a similar view in respect of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on estimated additions There are catena of decisions by different High Courts and various Benches of the Tribunal wherein penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on estimated addition has been held to be unsustainable.” 3. Here in this case, the ld. AO had applied GP…

Jatin Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(2), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3885/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2009-10) Jatin Enterprises, 31, Savita Sadan, 1St Parsiwada, V.P.Road, C.P.Tank, Mumbai – 400 004. Pan: Aaafj-4667-N ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit-19(2),Mumbai, Matru Mandir, Income Tax Office,Tardeo, Mumbai – 400 007. ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Bhende "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.A.R सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 20/03/2024 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/03/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 01/09/2023, For The Assessment Year 2009-10, Confirming Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961[ In Short ‘The Act’].

…al 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(l)(c) of the Act is not livable. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. reported as 221 ITR 110 has taken a similar view in respect of penalty levied u/s. 271(l){c) of the Act on estimated additions. There are catena of decisions by different High Courts and various Benches of the Tribunal wherein penalty levied u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act on estimated additions has been held to be unsustainable. 6. Thus, in the facts of the instant case and…

Income Tax Officer Ward-26(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Saraswati Wire and Cable Industries, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…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.” The facts in this case are similar. Respectfully following the order of jurisdictional ITAT, the penalty levied in this case is deleted in full. Other issues raised by the appellant are not dispose…

K P Sanghvi & Sons LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-19(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm K P Sanghvi & Sons Llp Asst. Cit-19(2) 12A-03, Crescenzo, C-38/39, Mumbai Vs. G – Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaafk 8390 F (Assessee) (Respondent) :

…r 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 other decisions by the Hon’ble High Court’s and various benches of the tribunal which had held the said p…

M/S Supertech Construction Company, Mumbai vs. ACIT 27 (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed

…on estimations. It is an accepted legal position that no 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 noti…

Jaisingh H Solanki, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2211/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Jaisingh H. Solanki बिधम/ Ito-19(2)(1) 25-C Sonarika Apt, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Vs. Nanubhai Desai Road, Road, Mumbai-400004. Chandawadi, Mumbai- 400004. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Acaps6502R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Ujjawal Kumar Chavan (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 24.02.2023 For Ay. 2010-11 Confirming The Action Of The Ao Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. None Appeared For Assessee But Has Filed Written Submission. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is Delay Of 52 Days & The Assessee Has Filed A Sworn Affidavit Dated 12.09.2022. After Going Through The Contents Of The Affidavit, We Are Of The Opinion That There Was Reasonable Cause For Belated Filing Of The Appeal. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Hear The Penalty Appeal On Its Own Merit.

…held the action of Tribunal deleting penalty levied on estimated quantum addition as under: - “CIT Vs. Krishi Tyre Retreadign and Rubber Industries (360 ITR 580) (Raj) CIT Vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. (303 ITR 53) (P & H) CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. (221 ITR 110) (Guj).” 7. Thus, as noted (supra), the issue as to whether the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act be levied on estimated quantum addition is no longer res-integra, therefore, we are inclined to direct the deletion of the penalty levied to the tune of Rs.5,27,640/-. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the o…

Bhawarlal Tarachandji Jain, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1729 & 1730/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12)

…Industries reported as 360 ITR 580, the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. San grur 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 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO failed to appreciate that there is neither concealment of particular…

Bhawarlal Tarachandji Jain, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1729 & 1730/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12)

…Industries reported as 360 ITR 580, the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. San grur 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 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO failed to appreciate that there is neither concealment of particular…

L. S. Diamonds, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

…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(l)(c) of the Act is not leviable. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. reported as 221 ITR 110 has taken a similar view in respect of penalty levied u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act on estimated additions. There are catena of decisions by different High Courts and various Benches of the Tribunal wherein penalty levied u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act on estimated addition has been held to be unsustainable.” 7. Fact available in the present case are ide…

L. S. Diamonds, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

…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(l)(c) of the Act is not leviable. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. reported as 221 ITR 110 has taken a similar view in respect of penalty levied u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act on estimated additions. There are catena of decisions by different High Courts and various Benches of the Tribunal wherein penalty levied u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act on estimated addition has been held to be unsustainable.” 7. Fact available in the present case are ide…

H K Industries, Mumbai vs. ITO-34(2)(1) Current Juridiction, Mumbai

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

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

…l 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(l)(c) of the Act is not leviable. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. reported as 221 ITR 110 has taken a similar view in respect of penalty levied u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act on estimated additions. There are catena of decisions by different High Courts and various Benches of the Tribunal wherein penalty levied u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act on estimated addition has been held to be unsustainable. 11. In the result, the impugned order is upheld…

M/S. Metal Traders, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 33(2)(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1139/मुं/ 2023 ("न.व.2011-12) M/S. Metal Traders, B/307, E/3, Highway Park, Thakur Complex, Kandivali East, Mumbai 400 101 Pan: Aagfm-3851-K ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito-Ward 33(2)(3), C-12, 6Th Floor, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Dinkle Haria, Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/06/2023 आदेश/ Order

…the Act levied on estimated additions has held to be unsustainable are as under:- (i) CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries, 360 ITR 580(Raj); (ii) CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., 303 ITR 53 (P&H; (iii) CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd., 221 ITR 110 (Guj); (iv) CIT vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd., 322 ITR 316 (Delhi). The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ramnarain And Company vs. ACIT (supra), ACIT vs. Golkunda Diamonds & Jewellery Ltd.(supra) and ACIT vs. M/s. Colo Color Pvt. Ltd. by placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions by the Hon’ble High Courts have held that no pen…

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

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

…rd, 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. We noticed earlier that the Assessing Officer has estimat…

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

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

…rd, 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. We noticed earlier that the Assessing Officer has estimat…

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

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

…rd, 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. We noticed earlier that the Assessing Officer has estimat…