CIT v. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd.

221 ITR 110High Court1996#691 most cited

What is CIT v. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. authority for?

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied when an addition to income is based purely on an estimate, without concrete evidence proving concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

146

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. · 221 ITR 110 · section 271(1)(c) · penalty on estimated additions · no penalty for estimated income · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · deletion of penalty · section 274 · penalty u/s 271(1)(c) estimate

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 147Section 143(3)Section 274Section 148Section 250Section 145(3)Section 132

Issues it is cited on

section 271(l)deletion of penaltysection 271(l)(c)penalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomepenalty u/s 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particularsconcealment of incomesection 271(1)levy of penaltysection 274section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing CIT v. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd.

Kamlesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-1, New Delhi

In the results, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1075/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…4 the Bench following the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Aero Traders (P) Ltd and the decision of Hon'ble P & H High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the decision of Gujrat High Court in CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company 221 ITR 110 (Guj) has followed the settled legal position that when income is estimated, then, there can be no question of imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and has deleted the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c). Similar view is upheld in the judgment of ITAT, Jaipur in the case of Vishnu Tambi v. DCIT, ITA no. 965 to 969/JP/2018. 11. Reliance is placed o…

Kamlesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-1, New Delhi

In the results, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1074/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…4 the Bench following the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Aero Traders (P) Ltd and the decision of Hon'ble P & H High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the decision of Gujrat High Court in CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company 221 ITR 110 (Guj) has followed the settled legal position that when income is estimated, then, there can be no question of imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and has deleted the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c). Similar view is upheld in the judgment of ITAT, Jaipur in the case of Vishnu Tambi v. DCIT, ITA no. 965 to 969/JP/2018. 11. Reliance is placed o…

Kamlesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-1, New Delhi

In the results, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1073/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…4 the Bench following the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Aero Traders (P) Ltd and the decision of Hon'ble P & H High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the decision of Gujrat High Court in CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company 221 ITR 110 (Guj) has followed the settled legal position that when income is estimated, then, there can be no question of imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and has deleted the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c). Similar view is upheld in the judgment of ITAT, Jaipur in the case of Vishnu Tambi v. DCIT, ITA no. 965 to 969/JP/2018. 11. Reliance is placed o…

M/S Ramnarain and Co., Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-17(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 347/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…ion 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. 5 ITA 347/Mum/2023 M/s Ramanarain And Company 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. Therefore it is a settled position that when the addition is made on estimated basis, there cannot be any penalty levied. In assessee’s case the A…

ITO, Ward-1(1), Thane vs. Mohd.Umar Timber Mart, Thane

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 354/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.353 & 354/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ito, Ward-1(1). Mohd. Umar Timber Room No. 23, B-Wing, 6Th Mart. Floor, Ashar It Park, Near Golden Dyes Co. बिधम/ Wagle Industrial Estate, Highway Service Road, Vs. Thane- 400 604 Haridas Nagar, Thane(W)- 400 601

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…271(1)(c) can be imposed when income is determined on estimate basis. The similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Co. 221 ITR 110 (Guj.). Moreover, in the assessment order it is mentioned that the appellant has agreed to the addition in order to buy peace and avoid litigation. This is an additional reason which favour the case that penalty should not be imposed on the appellant. 3.4 In light of above, and after careful consideration of the submission of the appellant and th…

ITO, Ward-1(1), Thane vs. Mohd.Umar Timber Mart, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 353/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.353 & 354/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ito, Ward-1(1). Mohd. Umar Timber Room No. 23, B-Wing, 6Th Mart. Floor, Ashar It Park, Near Golden Dyes Co. बिधम/ Wagle Industrial Estate, Highway Service Road, Vs. Thane- 400 604 Haridas Nagar, Thane(W)- 400 601

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…271(1)(c) can be imposed when income is determined on estimate basis. The similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Co. 221 ITR 110 (Guj.). Moreover, in the assessment order it is mentioned that the appellant has agreed to the addition in order to buy peace and avoid litigation. This is an additional reason which favour the case that penalty should not be imposed on the appellant. 3.4 In light of above, and after careful consideration of the submission of the appellant and th…

Bhim Singh, Kota Rajasthan vs. DCIT, C-2, Kota

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 91/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Maheshwari, (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…mbi vs. DCIT in ITA Nos. 965 to 969/JP/2018 dated 14.09.2020 and also in the cases of CIT vs. S. Rahamat Khan Birbal Khan Badruddin & Party, 240 ITR 778 (Raj.), ACIT vs. Bansiwala Iron & Steel Re-rolling Mills, 21 TW 533 (JP), CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co., 221 ITR 110 (Guj.), Harigopal Singh vs. CIT, 258 ITR 85 (P&H), ACIT vs. Ganpat Lal Goyal, 32 TW 91 (JP). Considering the totality of facts and circumstances as discussed and taking into consideration the factual aspects in the present case, since there is no specific finding by the revenue authorities as to how the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars…

Mukesh Saligram Sharda, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 1(2) Kalyan, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1908/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…1 ITAs 1907 & 1908/Mum/2021 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No.1907 & 1908/Mum/2021 (Assessment year 2019-20) Mukesh Shaligram Sharda vs Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(2), 93/1, Brahman Ali, Guru Ashish Bldg Kalyan, Mohan Plaza, Wayale Flat No.9, Near P R High School, Nagar, Khadak Pada, Kalyan (W)- Bhiwandi-421 302 421 301 PAN : AUFPS2113R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri N.A. Kulkarni Department represented by Shri Abhishek Kumar – Sr AR. Date of hearing 13/02/2023 Date of pr…

Mukesh Saligram Sharda, Mumbai vs. ITO WD1 (2), Kalyan

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1907/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…1 ITAs 1907 & 1908/Mum/2021 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No.1907 & 1908/Mum/2021 (Assessment year 2019-20) Mukesh Shaligram Sharda vs Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(2), 93/1, Brahman Ali, Guru Ashish Bldg Kalyan, Mohan Plaza, Wayale Flat No.9, Near P R High School, Nagar, Khadak Pada, Kalyan (W)- Bhiwandi-421 302 421 301 PAN : AUFPS2113R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri N.A. Kulkarni Department represented by Shri Abhishek Kumar – Sr AR. Date of hearing 13/02/2023 Date of pr…

United Gems, Mumbai vs. NFAC, DCIT- 19 (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2304/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm United Gems Nfac, Dcit-19(3), Ge-9010, G Block, Bharat Diamond Mumbai Vs. Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 050 Pan/Gir No. Aaafu 4527 G (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi Revenue By : Shri Vranda U. Matkari Date Of Hearing : 01.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.01.2023

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkari
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 4

…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…

M/S V.K. Ispat & Alloys, Mumbai vs. ITO-17(3)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 2325/MUM/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkarni
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…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 sai…

Pramod N. Prajapati, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vapi

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 621/SRT/2018[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Dec 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Pramod N. Prajapati, Pr.Cit-1, B-1, Panchvati Apartment, Valsad. Vs. Tokarkhada, Silvasa, D&Nh-396230 Pan No. Accpp 2457 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Hasmukhbhai N. Prajapati, Pr.Cit-1, E 8, Gokul Vihar, Tokarkhada, Valsad. Vs. Silvasa, D&Nh-396230 Pan No. Accpp 2456 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 154Section 250Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Virtual hearing) Pramod N. Prajapati, Pr.CIT-1, B-1, Panchvati Apartment, Valsad. Vs. Tokarkhada, Silvasa, D&NH-396230 PAN No. ACCPP 2457 J Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Hasmukhbhai N. Prajapati, Pr.CIT-1, E 8, Gokul Vihar, Tokarkhada, Valsad. Vs. Silvasa, D&NH-396230 PAN No. ACCPP 2456 K Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Ashutosh P Nanavaty, AR Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 19/12/2022 Date o…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 234/CTK/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…ere was no 4 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 evidence on concealment of income and consequently penalty could not be imposed. Ld. AR further placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Subhash Trading Co., reported in [1996] 221 ITR 110 (Gujarat), wherein it was held that the return of income was less than 80% of the assessed income and after considering the effect of Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act as the assessment was best judgment and there was no proof of concealment of income, it was held that the penalty was not imposable. Further, the ld. AR placed reliance o…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 233/CTK/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…ere was no 4 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 evidence on concealment of income and consequently penalty could not be imposed. Ld. AR further placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Subhash Trading Co., reported in [1996] 221 ITR 110 (Gujarat), wherein it was held that the return of income was less than 80% of the assessed income and after considering the effect of Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act as the assessment was best judgment and there was no proof of concealment of income, it was held that the penalty was not imposable. Further, the ld. AR placed reliance o…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 202/CTK/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…ere was no 4 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 evidence on concealment of income and consequently penalty could not be imposed. Ld. AR further placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Subhash Trading Co., reported in [1996] 221 ITR 110 (Gujarat), wherein it was held that the return of income was less than 80% of the assessed income and after considering the effect of Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act as the assessment was best judgment and there was no proof of concealment of income, it was held that the penalty was not imposable. Further, the ld. AR placed reliance o…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 201/CTK/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…ere was no 4 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 evidence on concealment of income and consequently penalty could not be imposed. Ld. AR further placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Subhash Trading Co., reported in [1996] 221 ITR 110 (Gujarat), wherein it was held that the return of income was less than 80% of the assessed income and after considering the effect of Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act as the assessment was best judgment and there was no proof of concealment of income, it was held that the penalty was not imposable. Further, the ld. AR placed reliance o…

S.M.Enterprisera, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 200/CTK/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…ere was no 4 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 evidence on concealment of income and consequently penalty could not be imposed. Ld. AR further placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Subhash Trading Co., reported in [1996] 221 ITR 110 (Gujarat), wherein it was held that the return of income was less than 80% of the assessed income and after considering the effect of Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act as the assessment was best judgment and there was no proof of concealment of income, it was held that the penalty was not imposable. Further, the ld. AR placed reliance o…

S M Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 199/CTK/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…ere was no 4 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 evidence on concealment of income and consequently penalty could not be imposed. Ld. AR further placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Subhash Trading Co., reported in [1996] 221 ITR 110 (Gujarat), wherein it was held that the return of income was less than 80% of the assessed income and after considering the effect of Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act as the assessment was best judgment and there was no proof of concealment of income, it was held that the penalty was not imposable. Further, the ld. AR placed reliance o…

Scorditte Stainless India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 5(3) (1), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 to 3 raised by the Appellant are allowed

ITA 2002/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "E" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Scorodite Stainless India Pvt. Ltd., C/o. D.C. Bothra & Co. LLP (CA) (formerly known as D.C. Bothra & Co.), 297, Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion, 1st Floor, Opp. Bank of India Nana Chowk, Mumbai - 400007 [PAN: AABCS8987Q] ……………. Appellant A.C.I.T., Circle-5(3)(1), Mumbai, Vs 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 ……………… Respondent Appearances For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Rajkumar Singh For the Respondent/Department : Shri B.K. Bagchi Date of conclusion of hearing : 1…

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

…s by estimating the profit on book results which should not attract penal provisions under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We draw support from the following decisions :- (i) CIT Vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. [322 ITR 316 (Del.)] (ii) CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Co. [221 ITR 110 (Guj.)] (iii) Hargopal Singh Vs. CIT [258 ITR 85 (P&H)]. 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24/08/2022 ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) ( C. N. PRASAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 24/08/2022 *MEHTA*…