CIT v. Valimkbhai H. Patel

280 ITR 487High Court2006#5324 most cited

What is CIT v. Valimkbhai H. Patel authority for?

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when additions or disallowances are made on an estimation basis during assessment.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v Valimkbhai H Patel · CIT(A) v Valmik bhai H Patel · penalty u/s 271(1)(c) · additions made on estimate basis · penalty on estimated additions · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · section 271(1) · section 274 · regular assessment · levy of penalty

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 275Section 132Section 133ASection 145Section 154Section 274
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomeconcealment of incomefurnishing inaccurate particularspenalty under section 271(1)(c)penalty u/s 271(1)(c)section 271(1)section 274regular assessmentlevy of penaltysection 271section 271(1)(c)section 27

Judgments citing CIT v. Valimkbhai H. Patel

Shri Anil Kothari (HUF), Surat vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle- 6, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2645/AHD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amrjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं".I.T.A No.2048/Ahd/2010 & 2645/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"Assessment Year:2007-08 1. Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम 1. Sri Anil J Kothari Proprietor Of Income-Tax, Circle -6, Surat. M/S. Arpit Exports, G-01, Vs. Vithrag Chambers, 7/1407 Thoba Sheri, Surat. 2. Sri Anil J Kothari Proprietor Of 2. Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Arpit Exports, G-01, Income-Tax, Circle -6, Surat. Vithrag Chambers, 7/1407 Thoba Sheri, Surat. "था. ले. सं./Pan No.: Aacha 4940 H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, C.A. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Mayank Pandey, Sr. D.R.

For Respondent: 2. Ground No.1 as amended by the Revenue states that Ld. CIT (A) has erred in de
Section 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…atio of 0.25% of unverifiable purchases. The penalty cannot be levied on estimated addition as decided in many judicial pronouncements like CIT v. Lalubhai Jogibhai Patel 261 ITR 216 (Guj), Hari Gopal Singh v. CIT 258 ITR 85 (P&H) , CIT v. Valmikibhai H Patel 280 ITR 487 (Guj). 19. Per contra, Ld. D.R. supported the order of CIT (A). 20. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the AO has made addition on account of unverifiable purchases at Rs.2,70,40,363/- being entire purchases which were reduced to 0.25%…

Hewitt Associates (India) Pvt. Ltd.., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 989/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

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

…t is our considered opinion that the addition/disallowance has not inaccurate particulars of income on the part of the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CIT vs. Prem Das (No. 1) 1999 248 ITR 234 (11/5/1999) & CIT vs. Prem Das (No. 2) 248 ITR 237 (2/8/2000) has held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable in a case where the difference between the returned income and the assessed income arises on account of a difference in opinion. Similarly, in CIT vs. Geo Sea Foods : 1999 : 244 ITR 44 the Hon’ble Kerala High Court referring to a judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held as…