Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT

265 ITR 25High Court2004#660 most cited

What is Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT authority for?

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not automatically imposed upon an assessee's failure to contest a quantum addition or if two views are possible; the Assessing Officer must prove the charge of concealment or inaccurate particulars. Furthermore, an Assessing Officer can disallow a claim during assessment if it is patently false on examination of facts.

151

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT · penalty section 271(1)(c) · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · penalty not automatic · burden of proof Assessing Officer · two views possible penalty · disallowance of false claim · assessment procedure · 265 ITR 25 · 130 Taxmann 553

Also reported as

130 Taxmann 553

Sections most often in play

Section 69ASection 143(3)Section 132Section 147Section 132(4)Section 69CSection 131(1A)Section 292C

Issues it is cited on

section 292csection 153a(1)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomepenalty under section 271(1)(c)advance taxpenalty u/s 271(1)(c)concealment of incomefurnishing inaccurate particularssearch assessmentsection 132aprincipal commissioner of income-taxloose papers

Judgments citing Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT

Mihir Agencies P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 46, Mumbai

ITA 695/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadवष" /Assessment Years: 2004-05 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/695/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-Cc-46 Room No.659, 6Th Floor Block H, Shri Sadashiv Chs Ltd., 6Th Road, Santacruz (E) Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 055. Mumbai-400 002. Pan:Aagfm 0809 D आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/996/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2005-06 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Mr. Mukesh Choksi Dcit-Cc-46 Room No.659, 6Th Floor Block H, Shri Sadashiv Chs Ltd., 6Th Road, Santacruz (E) Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 055. Mumbai-400 002. Pan:Aaapc 7767 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-Dr Assessee By: Shri Mukesh Choksi सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19& 20.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम, 1961 क" धारा ( 1 ) 254 केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" क" धारा धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 14/11/2014 Of The Cit (A)-38,Mumbai The Above- Mentioned Assessees Have Filed Appeals For The Ay.S2004-05And 2005-06 Respecti - Vely.The Only Issue In Both The Appeals Is About Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act.As Both The Assessees Are From The Same Group,Therefore,For Sake Of Convenience We Are Deciding The Appeals By Passing A Single Order.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-DR
Section 132Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…The Tribunal confirmed this order. On appeal,the AO dismissed the appeal and held that the 695 & 996/M/15-Mihir & Mukesh finding arrived at by the Tribunal did not warrant interference as it was purely a finding of fact.In the case of Durga Kamal Rice Mills(265 ITR 25)the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has held as under: “When two views are possible and when no clear and definite inference can be drawn, in a penalty proceeding, penalty cannot be imposed…….In quantum proceedings, a particular provision might be attracted for addition to the income of the assessee. But when it comes to the question of imposition of…

Agarwal Developers (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1166/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1166/Del/2013 (Assessment Year-2008-09)

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

…substantiated upto High Court, but the mere fact that the assessee could not furnish evidence in support of expenses claimed was not by itself enough to hold that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. iv. DURGA KAMAL RICE MILLS VS. CIT 265 ITR 25 (CAL.) v. CIT VS. BACARDI MARTINI LTD. 288 ITR 585 (DEL.) 6 vi. BURMAH SHELL OIL STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTING CO. OF INDIA LTD. VS. ITO 112 ITR 592 (CAL.) vii. CIT. VS. AMAR NATH230 ITR 619 (ALL.) viii. CIT. VS. CALCUTTA CREDIT CORPN. 166 ITR 29 (CAL.) ix. CIT VS. LOTUS TRANS TRA VELS (P) LTD.177 TAXMAN37 (DEL.) Thus, the disallowance of claim…

M/S. Sheetal Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6099/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri V.D. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…of the Ld. CIT(A), because the mere fact that an addition is confirmed in quantum proceedings cannot be conclusive of the imposition of penalty. In this regard, we refer the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Durga Kamal Rice Mill vs. CIT (2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal), wherein, it has been held that quantum proceedings are different from penalty proceedings. We further note that the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. P.K. 7 Narayanan (1999) 238 ITR 905 (Ker.), has held that despite the addition being confirmed by the Tribunal in quantum proceedings, the penalty can still be deleted by the Tribunal, i…

M/S. Godwin Maria Visuvasam, Chennai vs. ITO, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1911/CHNY/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G.Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Duraipandian,D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ D’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी जी. पवन कुमार "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G.PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1911/Mds./2013 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year :2006-07 Shri A.Godwin Maria Visuvasam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 4/1,Dhamu Nagar, Ward II(5), Kondasamy Street, Puliakulam, Coimbatore. Coimbatore 641 045. [PAN AEFPV 0151 A ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.S.Sridhar,Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respo…

DDIT(It) - 2(1), Kolkata. vs. Raj Narayan Sinha, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 867/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2004-05 Ddit(It)-2(1), Aayakar V/S. Raj Narayan Sinha Bhawan Poorva, 2Nd C/O A.S.Gupta & Co., Floor, Room No. 10, Old Post Office 211,110, Shantipally, Road, Kolkata-01 Kolkata-700107 [Pan No.Ayrps 5729 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276CSection 49Section 55(2)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri N.V.Vasusdevan, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2004-05 DDIT(IT)-2(1), Aayakar V/s. Raj Narayan Sinha Bhawan Poorva, 2nd C/o A.S.Gupta & Co., Floor, Room No. 10, Old Post Office 211,110, Shantipally, Road, Kolkata-01 Kolkata-700107 [PAN No.AYRPS 5729 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rajat Kr. Kureal, ACIT, DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 22-03-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement 13-04-2016 आदेश /O R D E R P…

Video Electronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Quantum Appeal being ITA No

ITA 133/DEL/2011[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2016AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Gurjeet Singh, CA & Sh. Mukesh Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjeet singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 32ASection 80I

…we are not in agreement with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), because the mere fact that an addition is confirmed in quantum proceedings cannot be conclusive of the imposition of penalty. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Durga Kamal Rice Mill vs. CIT (2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal), has held that quantum proceedings are different from penalty proceedings. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. P.K. Narayanan (1999) 238 ITR 905 (Ker.), has held that despite the addition being confirmed by the Tribunal in quantum proceedings, the penalty can still be deleted by the Tribunal, if the facts justify. 13.1 We further fi…

Video Electronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Quantum Appeal being ITA No

ITA 132/DEL/2011[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2016AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Gurjeet Singh, CA & Sh. Mukesh Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjeet singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 32ASection 80I

…we are not in agreement with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), because the mere fact that an addition is confirmed in quantum proceedings cannot be conclusive of the imposition of penalty. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Durga Kamal Rice Mill vs. CIT (2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal), has held that quantum proceedings are different from penalty proceedings. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. P.K. Narayanan (1999) 238 ITR 905 (Ker.), has held that despite the addition being confirmed by the Tribunal in quantum proceedings, the penalty can still be deleted by the Tribunal, if the facts justify. 13.1 We further fi…

Sahil Study Circle Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1434/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

…s the assessee has not been found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article. The slips impounded during the survey action are neither money nor bullion. Kindly refer to the judgments in the case of (a) CIT v. Ravi Kumar [2008] 294 ITR 78 (Punjab & Haryana), "8. In the present case, the assessee was found to be in possession of loose slips and not of any valuable articles or things. Neither the possession nor the ownership of any jewellery mentioned in the slips could prove. In view thereof, the provisions of section 69A of the Act had rightly not been applied by the Tribunal to th…

M/S Mac Overseas Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 1560/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2015AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mathur, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 27(1)(c)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…, we are not in agreement with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), because the mere fact that an addition is confirmed in quantum proceedings cannot be conclusive of the imposition of penalty. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Durga Kamal Rice Mill vs. CIT (2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal), has held that quantum proceedings are different from penalty proceedings. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. P.K. Narayanan (1999) 238 ITR 905 (Ker.), has held that despite the addition being confirmed by the Tribunal in quantum proceedings, the penalty can still be deleted by the Tribunal, if the facts justify. 8.1 We further find t…

Sh. Manmohan Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

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

ITA 315/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Garima Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…addition and did not challenge it further. But the mere fact that an addition has been accepted or is confirmed in quantum proceedings cannot be conclusive of the imposition of penalty. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Durga Kamal Rice Mill vs. CIT (2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal), has held that quantum proceedings are different from penalty proceedings. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. P.K. Narayanan (1999) 238 ITR 905 (Ker.), has held that despite the addition being confirmed by the Tribunal in quantum proceedings, the penalty can still be deleted by the Tribunal, if the facts justify. 5. It is noticed th…

ITA No.353/2009 vs. Three-N Products Pvt. Ltd

ITA/185/2009HC Delhi20 May 2009
Section 132Section 133ASection 158BSection 260ASection 69A

…t whilst material gathered in the course of the Search may be acted upon by virtue of Section 158BB, material collected during the Survey under Section 133A does not constitute requisite evidence. The ITAT has also applied CIT ?vs- Ravi Kumar, [2007] 294 ITR 78 where the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that it was improper to take into consideration ?loose slips? recovered during a Search of the Assessee, which slips did not conclusively prove anything, as sufficient cause to invoke Section 69A of the Act. This reasoning was applied by the ITAT to the facts obtaini…