Durga Timber Works v. CIT

EON AVIATION PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

…herein the Bombay High Court has held that where the assessee agree to inclusion of amount, onus shifts on assessee in penalty proceedings to show that the amount was not the concealed income. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Durga Timber Works Vs CIT (79 ITR 63) has held that it would amount to laying an impossible burden1 of proof " on Department and making provisions for imposition'; of penalty wholly unworkable, if even after admission by assessee that certain amount could be treated as its income, the Department has still to "prove by independent evidence that the assessee had concealed its income. Fu…

SANSUI STEELS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 7(2)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Sansui Steel Pvt. Ltd. Ito-7(2)(2), 401-C, Gokul Building, Room No. 621-A, Vs. 80A Baroda Street, Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Iron Market, S.T. Road, Marg, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400009 Pan No.Aaacs8834K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjpe, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/09/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11/2017

…ndation for the imposition of penalty. A plethora of precedents on the subject in which we are presently Sansui Steel Pvt. Ltd. 9 concerned compels us, in order to avoid prolixity, to refer only a few decisions. These are : Durga Timber Works vs. CIT, (1971) 79 ITR 63 (Del); Banaras Chemicals Factory vs. CIT, (1977) 108 ITR 96 (All), Ayyasami Nadar & Bros. vs. CIT, (1956) 30 ITR 565 (Mad); India Sea Foods vs. CIT, (1978) 114 ITR 124 (Ker); H.V. Venugopal Chettiar vs. CIT, (1985) 153 ITR 376 (Mad); Western Automobiles (India) vs. CIT, (1978) 112 ITR 1048 (Bom); CIT vs. Krishna & Co., (1979) 120 ITR 144 (Mad); CIT…

MIHIR AGENCIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 46, MUMBAI

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./7534/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./7536/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./7537/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-46 Room No.659, 6Th Floor Block H, Shri Sadashiv Chs Ltd. 6Th Road, Santacruz (E) Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 055. Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aabch 7898 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Mukesh Choksi-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/11/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:06/01/2017 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 31/10/2014 Of The Cit(A)-38,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed Appeals For The Above Mentioned Three Ay.S.The Only Issue In All The Appeals Is About Levy Of Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act.As The Appeals Deal With The Same Issue,Therefore,For Sake Of Convenience Same Are Being Decided By A Single Common Order.

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “बी मुंबई बी बी” ” ” ” खंडपीठ बी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“B”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अमरजीत "सह, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amarjit Singh,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./7534/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./7536/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./7537/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 200…

MUKESH CHOKSI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC (46), MUMBAI

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.

…d penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) after the confirmation of the quantum addition by the F AA. 4.Challenging the penalty order of the AO the assessee referred to the cases of Reliance Petro Products Ltd.(322 ITR 158), Sreenivasa Pai (242 ITR 29) and Durga Timber Works(79 ITR 63) and contended that it had declared 0.15% income 695 & 996/M/15-Mihir & Mukesh from its activities, that the third parties also confirmed the assessee was getting commission of same percent, that the AO had applied rate of 2%, that the Tribunal had reduced the rate to 0.15%,when income was assessed on estimate basis no concealment penalty could b…

MIHIR AGENCIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 46, MUMBAI

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.

…d penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) after the confirmation of the quantum addition by the F AA. 4.Challenging the penalty order of the AO the assessee referred to the cases of Reliance Petro Products Ltd.(322 ITR 158), Sreenivasa Pai (242 ITR 29) and Durga Timber Works(79 ITR 63) and contended that it had declared 0.15% income 695 & 996/M/15-Mihir & Mukesh from its activities, that the third parties also confirmed the assessee was getting commission of same percent, that the AO had applied rate of 2%, that the Tribunal had reduced the rate to 0.15%,when income was assessed on estimate basis no concealment penalty could b…

AMISH R. KAPADIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(30(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1858/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Amish R. Kapadia Ito, Ward – 12(3)(2), बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, 1St Floor, Indian Mercantile Mansion, Madam Kama Road, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 039 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpk 4127 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Dhirendra M. Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. R. Singh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 26.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 06.5.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 20.01.2010, Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2005-06 Vide Order Dated 31.3.2009. The Only Issue In Appeal Is The Sustainability Or Otherwise In Law Of The Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C), Levied In The Sum Of Rs.6,08,170/-, I.E., At The Minimum Rate Of 100% Of The Tax Sought To Be Evaded.

…M/s. Dharmendra Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC); CIT vs. A. Sreenivasa Pai [2000] 242 ITR 29 (Ker); Addl. CIT vs. Bhartiya Bhandar [1980] 122 ITR 622 (MP); Western Automobiles (India) vs. CIT [1978] 112 ITR 1048 (Bom); and Durga Timber Works vs. CIT [1971] 79 ITR 63 (Del). The same was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), meeting the assessee’s argument of both sections 68 & 69 being not applicable, relying on the order by the tribunal on quantum and finding the case law cited by the A.O. as relevant and applicable. Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal. 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on…

M/S STAR GOLD PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT, CIR -5(3), MUMBAI

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ई’ खंडपीठ मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “E” BENCH सव"ी राजे", लेखा सद" एवं संदीप गोसांई, "ाियक सद" Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Sandeep Gosain,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.2655/M/2013,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2009-10 M/s. Star Gold Pvt. Ltd. ACIT- Ward-5(3) Mukund M. Chitale & Co. CA Mumbai. 205,Agarwal,Shyamkamal“A”Building, Vs. Vile-Parle (E),Mumbai-400 057. PAN:AAICS 3712 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Anil Sathe (AR) राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri M.M. Utture (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing…