CIT v. Super Steel (Sales) Co.

178 ITR 451High Court1989#4141 most cited

What is CIT v. Super Steel (Sales) Co. authority for?

A penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income cannot be levied when the assessment was made on a protective basis, especially if the income was actually assessed in the hands of another person and it was uncertain who had concealed the income.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v Super Steel (Sales) Co. · 178 ITR 451 · protective assessment · protective penalty · Section 271(1)(c) · concealment of income · deletion of penalty

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 158bfasection 271aaaprotective assessmentsection 153(a)section 91section 158bbdeletion of penaltysubstantive assessmentsection 158bcindexed cost of acquisitionpenalty under section 271(1)(c)section 48

Judgments citing CIT v. Super Steel (Sales) Co.

Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 872/CHNY/2014[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Mar 2017AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Shri R. Durai Pandian, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ड.एस. सु"दर "संह, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.867, 868, 869, 870, 871 & 872/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1998-99 to 2003-04 Shri Durga Das Vyas, The Income Tax Officer, Narottam Agencies, v. Range IX(3), 13, Errabalu Street, Chennai. Chennai - 600 001. PAN : ADAPV 2591 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.873 & 874/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /…

Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 871/CHNY/2014[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Mar 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Shri R. Durai Pandian, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ड.एस. सु"दर "संह, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.867, 868, 869, 870, 871 & 872/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1998-99 to 2003-04 Shri Durga Das Vyas, The Income Tax Officer, Narottam Agencies, v. Range IX(3), 13, Errabalu Street, Chennai. Chennai - 600 001. PAN : ADAPV 2591 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.873 & 874/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /…

Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 870/CHNY/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Mar 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Shri R. Durai Pandian, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ड.एस. सु"दर "संह, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.867, 868, 869, 870, 871 & 872/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1998-99 to 2003-04 Shri Durga Das Vyas, The Income Tax Officer, Narottam Agencies, v. Range IX(3), 13, Errabalu Street, Chennai. Chennai - 600 001. PAN : ADAPV 2591 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.873 & 874/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /…

Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 869/CHNY/2014[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Mar 2017AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Shri R. Durai Pandian, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ड.एस. सु"दर "संह, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.867, 868, 869, 870, 871 & 872/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1998-99 to 2003-04 Shri Durga Das Vyas, The Income Tax Officer, Narottam Agencies, v. Range IX(3), 13, Errabalu Street, Chennai. Chennai - 600 001. PAN : ADAPV 2591 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.873 & 874/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /…

Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 868/CHNY/2014[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Mar 2017AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Shri R. Durai Pandian, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ड.एस. सु"दर "संह, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.867, 868, 869, 870, 871 & 872/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1998-99 to 2003-04 Shri Durga Das Vyas, The Income Tax Officer, Narottam Agencies, v. Range IX(3), 13, Errabalu Street, Chennai. Chennai - 600 001. PAN : ADAPV 2591 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.873 & 874/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /…

Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 867/CHNY/2014[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Mar 2017AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Shri R. Durai Pandian, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ड.एस. सु"दर "संह, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.867, 868, 869, 870, 871 & 872/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1998-99 to 2003-04 Shri Durga Das Vyas, The Income Tax Officer, Narottam Agencies, v. Range IX(3), 13, Errabalu Street, Chennai. Chennai - 600 001. PAN : ADAPV 2591 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.873 & 874/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow

In the result all the four appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 397/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2017AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. Dinesh Verma, Adv
Section 142Section 260ASection 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 273BSection 5

…as confirmed by the Hon'ble I.T.A.T. on the same set of facts and circumstances and, therefore also the levy of penalty cannot be said to be justified. I place reliance on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Super Steel (Sales) Ltd. 178 ITR 451 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has categorically held that there can be a protective assessment but there cannot be any protective penalty. Similar is the view taken in the case of Metal Store Vs. CIT 186 ITR 612(Gau.). In light of the above the penalty levied u/s 27ID on the appellant firm who is acting as an agent for and on behalf of its princ…

Y.P. Punj Family Trust, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7614/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

For Respondent: Shri A K Kardam
Section 271(1)(c)Section 64

…which can be treated as concealed income or furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income. Before us, the Ld. Counsel has cited following decision in support of the contention no penalty can be levied on protective basis :- CIT v Super Steel (Sales) Co. 178 ITR 451(Cal) Metal Stores vs CIT 186 ITR 612(Gau) ITO vs Miss Vasudha Bajoria 40 ITD 414(ITAT-Kol) CIT v Smt. Durgawati Singh 234 ITR 249(All) Whereas, the Ld. DR has strongly relied upon the order of the CIT(A). 4. On the perusal of the impugned order and facts and materials on record, we find that both the authorities have discussed in detail, the co…