CIT v. Vijay Kumar Jain

325 ITR 378High Court2010#4258 most cited

What is CIT v. Vijay Kumar Jain authority for?

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied solely on account of an addition made by the Assessing Officer if the assessee's particulars were not found inaccurate and there was no allegation of income concealment.

28

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. Vijay Kumar Jain · penalty · section 271(1)(c) · concealment of income · inaccurate particulars · addition · profit rate · estimation

Also reported as

232 Taxmann 197

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 194-1ASection 250

Issues it is cited on

shell companysource of sourcesection 246section 250(4)section 41admission of additional evidenceaddition under section 68principal commissioner of income-taxshare application moneydocuments seizedrule 46atangible material

Judgments citing CIT v. Vijay Kumar Jain

Shri. Shantilal J Sanghavi, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(3)(3), Mumbai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 1288/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1288/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Shantilal J. Sanghavi Ito – 17(3)(3) बिाम/ Shop No. 17, Basement 25C, R. No.111A, Aaykar Bhavan Sonarika Bldg, Nanubhai Desai Road M. K. Marg, Vs. C. P. Tank, Mumbai-400 004 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aqnps-6168-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Dhawal Shah– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri V. Vinod Kumar– Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 05/10/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year [Ay] 2009-10 Arises Out Of The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 08/07/2019 Which Has Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs.74,800/- U/S 271(1)(C) As Levied By Ld. Ao Vide Penalty Order Dated 21/03/2018. The Ld. Ar Submitted That Penalty Is Not Sustainable Since The Additions Are Estimated Additions. The Ld. Sr. Dr, On The Other Hand, Justified The Penalty On The Facts Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Dhawal Shah– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar– Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ई” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री विकास अिस्थी, न्यावयक सदस्य एवं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1288/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Shantilal J. Sanghavi ITO – 17(3)(3) बिाम/ Shop No. 17, Basement 25C, R. No.111A, Aaykar Bhavan Sonarika Bldg, Nanubhai Desai Road M. K. Marg, Vs. C. P. Tank, Mumbai-400 004 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./…

V.B. Builders, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2059/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2013-14 V.B. Builders, Vs Dcit, C/O Praveen Aggarwal & Co.,Cas, Circle-2, 23, Bhai Veer Singh Marg, Ghaziabad. Gole Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aagfv0254P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kvsr Krishnan, Ca Revenue By : Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.07.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31St January, 2018 Of The Cit(A), Ghaziabad, Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.6,63,960/- By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act, 1961 Which Has Been Upheld By The Cit(A) Is The Only Issue Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29Th October, 2013 Declaring Total Income At Rs.1,78,80,820/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The It Act, 1961 On 30Th December, 2015 Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,00,28,920/- Wherein He Made An Addition Of Rs.21,48,102/- By Estimating The Profit At 14.5% As Agreed By The Assessee For Such Estimation. Subsequently, The Ao Initiated Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. Rejecting The Various Explanations Given By The Assessee & Distinguishing The Various Decisions Cited Before Him, The Ao Levied Penalty Of Rs.6,63,763/- Being 100% Of Tax Sought To Be Evaded.

For Appellant: Shri KVSR Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…IT Vs. M.M. Rice Mills (2002) 253 ITR 17 (Punj); 6. CIT Vs. Devandas Perumal & Co. [(1983) 140 ITR 943 (Bom.)]; 7. CIT, Poona vs. B.D. Ramchandra (Bom.)150 ITR 242; 8. CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Company 221 ITR 110 (HC) (Bom.); 9. CIT Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain [2010] 325 ITR 378 (Chhattisgarh); & 10.CIT Vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. [2008] 303 ITR 53 (P & H). 7. The ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has given justifiable reasons as to why penalty is leviable under the facts and circumstances of the case. He submitted that the AO has given a finding that the books of account of the assessee were…

Godavari Khore Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd, Ahmednagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 2335/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2335/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Godavari Khore Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd., A/P Sahajanandnagar, Tal. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaaag0652R बनाम / V/S. Acit, Ahmednagar Circle, ……""यथ" / Respondent Ahmednagar. Assessee By : Shri Prasanna Joshi Revenue By : Shri Vitthal Bhosale सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03.03.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Pune (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 12.07.2017 Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax, Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is Cooperative Society Engaged In The Business Of Milk Processing. The Appellant Society Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Through Electronically Mode On 22.09.2013 Disclosing Rs.Nil Income After Setting Off Of The Brought

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal Bhosale
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…cannot be sustained. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the following decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts :- (i) CIT vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd., 322 ITR 316 (Del); (ii) CIT vs. Parkash Industries Ltd., 322 ITR 622 (P&H); (iii) CIT vs. Vijay Kumar Jain, 325 ITR 378 (Chhattisgarh); and, (iv) CIT vs. S S P Ltd, 328 ITR 643 (P&H). 8. In the light of the above legal position, we are of the considered view that the impugned order of penalty cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are set-aside and we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty of Rs.4,43,00…

M/S. A.C. Goods Transport Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2428/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2004-05

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

…ls (2014) 360 ITR 385 (Guj); CIT verses Raj Bans Singh (2005) 276 ITR 351 (Allahabad); CIT verses Aero traders (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Delhi); CIT verses Modi industrial Corporation (2010) 195 Taxman 68 (Punjab and Haryana) and CIT verses Vijay Kumar Jain (2010) 325 ITR 378. Further reliance is also made on the decisions reported in CIT verses Reliance Petro products (P) Ltd 322 ITR 158 and also CIT verses DCM Ltd Limited(2013) 359 ITR 0101 (Delhi). 8. Ld. DR heavily relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 9. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. There is no…

M/S Euro Jewels, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 712/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Jan 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Harsh (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…IT vs. Subhash Trading Company (1996) 221 ITR 110 (Guj) f. CIT vs. Raj Bans Singh (2005) 276 ITR 351 (All) g. CIT v. Aero Traders (2010) 231 CTR 524 (Delhi) h. CIT v. Modi Industrial Corporation (2010) 195 Taxman 68 (P&H) i. CIT v. Vijay Kumar Jain (2010) 325 ITR 378 (Chattisgarh) j. Shiv Narain Jamnalal (MP High Court): 7 ITD 795: held that where trading addition has been made by rejecting the books of accounts, no penalty was imposable for such estimated addition. ITA 712/JP/2017_ 4 M/s Euro Jewels Vs ITO Ld. AR pleaded that the penalty should not be imposed automatically merely because some addition h…

Rajesh Mundhra, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T CC - III, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2526/KOL/2013[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2016AY 1997-1998

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)

…No perversity has been pointed in such a finding. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. As a result, the appeal is dismissed. 11. In the case of CIT vs Vijay Kumar Jain of Honourable High Court of Chhattisgarh reported in the 325 ITR 378 (Chattisgarh) wherein the Honourable High Court did not find fault with the finding of the Tribunal in cancelling the penalty on the ground that the net profit was estimated at 10%. The relevant portion of finding is reproduced herein below: 13. If we examine facts of the present case in the light of the principles of law laid down by the Suprem…

Deliben Seth, Mumbai vs. Asst Cen Cir 13, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 5255/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazsmt. Deliben Seth Acit, Central Circle -13 304/B, Pratiksha Tower Old Cgo Building Annex Vs. R.S. Nimkar Marg 11Th Floor, M.K. Road Mumbai 400008 Mumbai 400020 Pan - Afnpj6262P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dr. K. ShivramFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Om Ningshen
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…No. 5895/Mum/2010 dated 09.12.2011) (iii) Naresh Chand Agarwal (2013) 357 ITR (All) (HC) (iv) Bombaywala Readymade Stores (2015) 203 Taxman 313 (Guj) (HC) (v) Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries (2014) 360 ITR 580 (Raj) (HC) (vi) Vijay Kumar Jain (2010 325 ITR 378 (Chhattisgarh) (HC) (vii) Vikram Plastics (2012) 136 ITD 273 (Ahd) (TM) (viii) Aero Traders (P.) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Del) (HC) 3.3.1 Per contra, the learned D.R. supported the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) in respect of the sustaining of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of unexplained jewellery of `1,93,424…

Pranab Tulsidas Shende, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 15(3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6377/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri K.Mohandas
Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…jasthan High Court in the case of Mahendra Singh Khedla, 71 DTR 189, Delhi High Court in the case of Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., 343 ITR 434, P&H High Court in the case of Ravail Singh & Co., 254 ITR 191 and Chattishgarh High Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Jain, 325 ITR 378. In support of the proposition that addition u/s.41(1) cannot be made if the liability is recognised in the books of account, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bhogilal Ramjibhai Atara, 222 Taxman 313, Delhi High Court in the case of Jaipur Jewellers (Exports), 77 CCH 599. 4. On the other hand, ld. D…