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.

ITO - 13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Viva Composite Panel Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5709/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Ravish Sood, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5708/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आिकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5709/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito-13(3)(3) M/S Viva Composite Panel Pvt. Ltd. बिाम/ R.No.227, 2 Nd Floor Unit No.7, New Tejpal Estate Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Road Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 072 स्थािीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcv-9909-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Vallabh Parmar – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 27/10/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 27/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2010-11 & 2011-12 Contest Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Qua Deletion Of Certain Penalty U/S 271(1)(C). In The Said Orders, Ld. Cit(A) Has Deleted Penalty Of Rs.1 Lac & Rs.0.87 Lac For Ays 2010-11 & 2011-

For Appellant: Shri Vallabh Parmar – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…ditions were made on estimated basis. For the said proposition, reliance was placed, inter-alia, on the binding decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Harigopal Singh V/s CIT 258 ITR 85 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT V/s Subhash Trading Co. 221 ITR 110 besides host of various Tribunal decisions which are already enumerated in the impugned order. Therefore, the penalty was deleted. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. ITA Nos.5708-5709/Mum/2018 M/s Viva Composite Panel Private Limited Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12 4. Upon careful consideration, we find that the impugned…

Shri Harish Tambi, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 970/JPR/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2020AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena , Addl. CIT- DR
Section 271(1)

…vied only estimated addition and reliance is placed on the following decisions: - 1. CIT Vs. S. Rahamat Khan Birbal Khan Badruddin & Party, 240 ITR 778 (Raj.) 2. ACIT Vs. Bansiwala Iron & Steel Re-rolling Mills, 21 TW 533 (JP) 3. CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Co., 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) 9 Shri Harish Tambi vs DCIT, Central Circle-1, ,Jaipur 4. Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT, 258 ITR 85 (P&H) 5. ACIT Vs. Ganpat Lal Goyal, 32 TW 91 (JP) In view of the aforesaid facts it is a case most justified for deletion of the penalty. 3. Definite Finding about concealment is necessary - Under section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is giv…

Shri Vishnu Tambi, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 965/JPR/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2020AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena , Addl. CIT- DR
Section 271(1)

…vied only estimated addition and reliance is placed on the following decisions: - 1. CIT Vs. S. Rahamat Khan Birbal Khan Badruddin & Party, 240 ITR 778 (Raj.) 2. ACIT Vs. Bansiwala Iron & Steel Re-rolling Mills, 21 TW 533 (JP) 3. CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Co., 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) 9 Shri Vishnu Tambi vs DCIT, Central Circle-1, ,Jaipur 4. Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT, 258 ITR 85 (P&H) 5. ACIT Vs. Ganpat Lal Goyal, 32 TW 91 (JP) In view of the aforesaid facts it is a case most justified for deletion of the penalty. 3. Definite Finding about concealment is necessary - Under section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is giv…

Manpreet Singh Bhullar, Parwanoo vs. ITO, Parwanoo

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 923/CHANDI/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jan 2020AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Surinder Babbar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudershan, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…can be imposed when income is determined on estimated basis. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company (1996) 221 ITR 110 (Guj). 5. As regard disallowance of expenses for personal use, this does not include any element of concealment of particulars or filing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. Mere disallowance in the assessment proceedings will not lead to the penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Addl. CIT v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co.Ltd (1986) 157 ITR 822 (Del); CI…

I.T.O.19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ramesh B. Doshi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5436/MUM/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharmaआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 5436/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04) बिधम/ Ito 19(3)(1) Ramesh B. Doshi R.No. 202, 2Nd Floor, Mtru A-1, Maniyar Bldg., Vs. Flat No. 34, 3Rd Floor, Mandir, Tardeo, Road, Mumbai. Near Film Centre, Tardeo, Mumbai. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aadpd3476E (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. अऩीराथी ओय से / Appellant By : Shri R. Bhoopathy, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Rajkumar Singh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing 20/12/2019 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23 /12 /2019

For Appellant: Shri R. Bhoopathy, DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajkumar Singh, AR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…nalty can be imposed u/s 271 (1 )(c) when income is determined on estimate basis. The similar view has been taken by: Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Harigopal a) Singh Vs CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 Honble Gujrat High Court in CIT Vs Subhash Trading Co b) 221 ITR 110 ITAT, Mumbai in ITO Vs Chhotalal Textiles (P) Ltd 95 c) TTJ 436 ITAT, Mumbai in Sonali A Shah Vs ITO ITA No d) 5720/M/2013 ITAT, Mumbai ITO Vs. Chempure 40 SOT 164 ( 2010). e) Hon'ble Courts have clearly held that penalty levied on estimated income does not comply with the settled principles of natural justice. Keeping in view the facts and circu…

Sudhir Vora, Mumbai vs. ACIT- CC -3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 5108/MUM/2018[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5108/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1997-98) बिधम/ Sudhir Vora Acit-Cc-3(2) Moheshwar Mension, 602, 18 & 19 Air India Bldg, Vs. 6Th Floor, Bapubhai, Vashi Nariman Point, Mumbai- Road, Vile Parle, Mumbai- 400021. 400056. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapv9690D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A. L. Sharma Revenue By: Shri V. Vinod Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 04.06.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 1997-98 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Order To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri A. L. SharmaFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ermined on estimate basis. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT reported in 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company reported in 221 ITR 110 (Guj). In view of the foregoing precedents, it is apparent that when the bedrock of instant penalty is the estimate of net profit, the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) and direct the AO to delete the penalty. Accordingly, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and delete the pena…

Naveen Kumar Kaparthy, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1660/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…ermined on estimate basis. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT reported in 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company reported in 221 ITR 110 (Guj). In view of the foregoing precedents including the one from the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, it is apparent that when the bedrock of instant penalty is the estimate of net profit, the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) and direct the AO to delete the penalty. Naveen Kumar Kaparthy, H…

Naveen Kumar Kaparthy, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1659/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…ermined on estimate basis. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT reported in 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company reported in 221 ITR 110 (Guj). In view of the foregoing precedents including the one from the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, it is apparent that when the bedrock of instant penalty is the estimate of net profit, the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) and direct the AO to delete the penalty. Naveen Kumar Kaparthy, H…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Resurgere Mines and Minerals India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1531/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CA and Shri Ashish Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…l.) has held that no penalty v/e 271(1)(c) can be imposed when income is determined on estimate basis. a) Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) b) Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in err Vs. Subhash Trading Co. 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) 6. It is apparent that the bedrock of instant penalty is the estimate of valuation of closing stock, the same cannot be sustained. The penalty is thus, ordered to be deleted. In the case of ACIT vs, Agrawal Enterprises IT Appeal No. 1201(Pune) of 2009 it was held as under by the ITAT: Weighted average method is a recognized method and i…

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-1(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S Backbone Construction P. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 56/RJT/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.54-56/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2008-2009, 2009-10 & 2010-11 D.C.I.T, M/S.Backbone Construction Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1), Vs. Ekta House, 2-Jalaram, Rajkot University Road, Rajkot. Pan: Aaccb1167C

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

…assessee in support of its claim relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Anva Ali reported in 76 ITR 696. 6.2 The assessee also relied on the Judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Subhash trading Co. reported in 221 ITR 110 wherein it was held that no penalty could be imposed in a case where the income is assessed on estimated basis after the rejection of the books of account. 7. The Ld.CIT (A) after considering the submission of the assessee deleted the penalty imposed by the AO after having a reliance on the Judgment of Gujarat High court in case of Subhash tradi…

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-1(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S Backbone Construction P. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 55/RJT/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.54-56/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2008-2009, 2009-10 & 2010-11 D.C.I.T, M/S.Backbone Construction Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1), Vs. Ekta House, 2-Jalaram, Rajkot University Road, Rajkot. Pan: Aaccb1167C

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

…assessee in support of its claim relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Anva Ali reported in 76 ITR 696. 6.2 The assessee also relied on the Judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Subhash trading Co. reported in 221 ITR 110 wherein it was held that no penalty could be imposed in a case where the income is assessed on estimated basis after the rejection of the books of account. 7. The Ld.CIT (A) after considering the submission of the assessee deleted the penalty imposed by the AO after having a reliance on the Judgment of Gujarat High court in case of Subhash tradi…

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-1(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S Backbone Construction P. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 54/RJT/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.54-56/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2008-2009, 2009-10 & 2010-11 D.C.I.T, M/S.Backbone Construction Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1), Vs. Ekta House, 2-Jalaram, Rajkot University Road, Rajkot. Pan: Aaccb1167C

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

…assessee in support of its claim relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Anva Ali reported in 76 ITR 696. 6.2 The assessee also relied on the Judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Subhash trading Co. reported in 221 ITR 110 wherein it was held that no penalty could be imposed in a case where the income is assessed on estimated basis after the rejection of the books of account. 7. The Ld.CIT (A) after considering the submission of the assessee deleted the penalty imposed by the AO after having a reliance on the Judgment of Gujarat High court in case of Subhash tradi…

Vivek Jairath, Delhi vs. ACIT, Ghaziabad

In the result ITA 4103/Del/2015 stands allowed

ITA 4104/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Ìta No. 4104/Del/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Vivek Jairath, Vs Dcit, C/O Matta & Associates, Circle-2, 877, Aggarwal Cyber Plaza-Ii, Ghaziabad. Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi-110034 (Pan: Adnpj0779P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By: Shri Ajay Kumar Matta, Ca Assessee By: Shri B.S. Anant, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 4.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2018

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Anant, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Matta, CA
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…(c) can be imposed when income is determined on estimate basis. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company, 221 ITR 110 (Guj). Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that no penalty is imposable on the facts of the present case. We set aside the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty. 7.1 In the result ITA 4103/Del/2015 stands allowed. 8.0 We now take up the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 b…

Vivek Jairath, Delhi vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result ITA 4103/Del/2015 stands allowed

ITA 4103/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Ìta No. 4104/Del/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Vivek Jairath, Vs Dcit, C/O Matta & Associates, Circle-2, 877, Aggarwal Cyber Plaza-Ii, Ghaziabad. Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi-110034 (Pan: Adnpj0779P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By: Shri Ajay Kumar Matta, Ca Assessee By: Shri B.S. Anant, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 4.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2018

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Anant, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Matta, CA
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…(c) can be imposed when income is determined on estimate basis. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company, 221 ITR 110 (Guj). Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that no penalty is imposable on the facts of the present case. We set aside the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty. 7.1 In the result ITA 4103/Del/2015 stands allowed. 8.0 We now take up the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 b…

M/S. J.R. Enterprises, Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3042/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 J.R. Enterprises, Vs Dcit, C/O D.B. Jain & Co., Central Circle 5, Shakahar Bldg., New Delhi. 1, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi-110002 (Pan: Adqpg3144E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Department By : Shri James Singson, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri James Singson, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…ined on estimate basis. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT reported in 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company reported in 221 ITR 110 (Guj). In view of the foregoing precedents including the one from the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, it is apparent that when the bedrock of instant penalty is estimated disallowance, the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) and direct the AO to delete the penalty. 6.0 In the result, the…

Ritesh P. Burad, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3446/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Shri Ritesh P. Burad Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of 17B, Prena Building Income Tax, Circle-2 Swagatam Housing Complex Thane Jesal Park, Bhayander(E), Thane Pan/Gir No.Adgpb7399N (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 131Section 133ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…The income determined on estimation basis does not reflect the real income of an assessee since estimation is a mere attempt to judge the estimated income. For this purpose reliance was 3 Shri Ritesh P Burad also placed on the decision reported at 71 DTK 189,221 ITR 110, 254 ITR 191, 177 CTR 580, 180 Taxman 355. 4. Learned AR also challenged validity of notice issued u/s.274. It was argued that AO while initiating the penalty, issued the notice u/s.274 in mechanical manner which is a blank unfilled form without intimating as-to whether the penalty has been initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing th…

Mamta Bakshi, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 1360/DEL/2018[20110-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2018

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

For Appellant: Shri Anil Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…y u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed when income is determined on estimate basis. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble P&H High Court in Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company, 221 ITR 110 (Guj). Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the penalty on the basis of estimate. I, therefore, order to delete the penalty confirmed for both the years under consideration. 5. In the result, both the appeals are allowed. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 2…

Mamta Bakshi, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 1359/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

For Appellant: Shri Anil Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…y u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed when income is determined on estimate basis. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble P&H High Court in Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company, 221 ITR 110 (Guj). Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the penalty on the basis of estimate. I, therefore, order to delete the penalty confirmed for both the years under consideration. 5. In the result, both the appeals are allowed. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 2…

Ajit Singh Bagga, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 96/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Y. 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44Section 68

…by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Harigopal Singh vs. CIT reported in (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Co. Page 5 of 6 ITA 96/Del/2015 A.Y.:2008-09 Sh. Ajit Singh Bagga vs. ACIT reported in 221 ITR 110 (Guj.). It is apparent that the bedrock of instant penalty is the estimate of profit and the same cannot be sustained. The penalty is, thus, ordered to be deleted. 6. In the result appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 28th June, 2018. (G.D.AGRAWAL) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER D…

Arvind Kumar, Rohtak vs. ITO, Rohtak

In the result appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 81/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Y. 2008-09

Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Y. 2008-09 Sh. Arvind Kumar ITO, Ward 2 Prop: M/s Evershine vs. Rohtak Traders 462/19, Shakti Nagar Rohtak PAN: AHQPK8058D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Naveen Gupta, Adv. Department by Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr.D.R. Date of Hearing 28/06/2018 Date of Pronouncement 28/06/2018 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 21.11.2014 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Ap…