Harigopal Singh v. CIT

258 ITR 85High Court2002#448 most cited

What is Harigopal Singh v. CIT authority for?

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when an addition to income is made on an estimated basis without concrete evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The provisions of section 271(1)(c) are not attracted to cases where income is assessed on an estimate basis.

203

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,842 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Harigopal Singh v. CIT · 258 ITR 85 · section 271(1)(c) · penalty on estimated additions · no penalty for estimated income · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · concrete evidence of concealment · levy of penalty · section 271(1)

Also reported as

125 Taxmann 252

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 145(3)Section 148Section 274Section 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

penalty u/s 271(1)(c)penalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particularsfurnishing inaccurate particulars of incomeconcealment of incomesection 271(1)levy of penaltysection 274section 271(1)(c)section 271section 27section 147

Judgments citing Harigopal Singh v. CIT

Sushil Chhatrabhuj Raheja, Mumbai vs. ACIT 25(1), Mumbai

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

ITA 1375/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)Section 37

…that no penalty is leviable on the addition made on the basis of estimation/ad hoc basis. In support of the submission the ld AR of the assessee relied upon the following decision; (i) CIT Versus Ravail Singh & Company 254 ITR 191(P&H), (ii) Harigopal Vs CIT 258 ITR 85 (P&H HC), (iii) ITO Vs Bombaywala Readymade Store[2015]230Taxman 313(Guj H C), (iv) Naresh Chand Aggarwal Versus CIT 357 ITR 515 (All HC), (v) DCIT Versus Manohar Manak ITA 5586/Mumbai/2015, (vi) Yashraj Films Pvt Ltd Versus ACIT ITA 7519/Mumbai/ 2013, (vii) Sarvesh Mercantile Private Ltd Vs ACIT ITA 6040/M/ 2013 and (viii) DCIT versus Risabh Impe…

Ahamedsaib Babu, Vellore vs. ITO, Vellore

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 201/CHNY/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Manohar Doss,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.A.R.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT, D.R
Section 139(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

…urther as noted from the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee various Tribunals have held that unless any positive concealment is found, no penalty is leviable on the additions made on estimate basis. In the case of Harigopal Singh v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85/ 125 Taxman 242(Punj. & Har.) it was held that where the assessment is made on estimate basis, no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act can be imposed. In that case it was observed that on account of mere difference of ITA Nos.200 & 201/Mds./16 :- 11 -: opinion as regards the estimation of income penalty cannot be levied. Since the Assessing Offic…

Ahamedsaib Babu, Vellore vs. ITO, Vellore

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 200/CHNY/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Manohar Doss,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.A.R.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT, D.R
Section 139(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

…urther as noted from the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee various Tribunals have held that unless any positive concealment is found, no penalty is leviable on the additions made on estimate basis. In the case of Harigopal Singh v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85/ 125 Taxman 242(Punj. & Har.) it was held that where the assessment is made on estimate basis, no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act can be imposed. In that case it was observed that on account of mere difference of ITA Nos.200 & 201/Mds./16 :- 11 -: opinion as regards the estimation of income penalty cannot be levied. Since the Assessing Offic…

JCIT, Cuttack vs. M/S. Dushashan Jena, Cuttack

In the result, the appeal was allowed

ITA 324/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Aug 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, CITDR
Section 269SSection 271D

…nd further the AO has not identified any specific bill/voucher for disallowance from the financial statements. Therefore, penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied as per the ratio of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh, 258 ITR 85 (P&H), wherein it is held as under:- “In order to attract clause (c ) of section 271(1), it is necessary that there must be concealment by the assessee of the particulars of his income or if he furnishes inaccurate particulars of such income. In the instant case, the Tribunal agreed that the income of the assessee had to be assessed on an estimate…

ACIT, Cuttack vs. M/S. Dushasan Jena, Cuttack

In the result, the appeal was allowed

ITA 244/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Aug 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, CITDR
Section 269SSection 271D

…nd further the AO has not identified any specific bill/voucher for disallowance from the financial statements. Therefore, penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied as per the ratio of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh, 258 ITR 85 (P&H), wherein it is held as under:- “In order to attract clause (c ) of section 271(1), it is necessary that there must be concealment by the assessee of the particulars of his income or if he furnishes inaccurate particulars of such income. In the instant case, the Tribunal agreed that the income of the assessee had to be assessed on an estimate…

R. V. Enterprises, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-36(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1336/KOL/2014[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 May 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Partha Sarathi Chowdhury

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ed in dismissing assessee’s appeal against order u/s. 271(1)(c) without dealing with judicial decisions relied by the appellant as under:- (a) CIT –vs- P.K. Narayanan 238 ITR 905(Kar) (b)CIT-vs-Babu Ram Ramkishan 116 ITR 410 (All) (c) Harigopal Singh –vs- CIT 258 ITR 85 (Punj & Har) (d) CIT-vs-Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. 3212 ITR 158 (SC) 5. That on the fats and in the circumstances of the case, the action of Ld. CIT(A) to dismiss appeal without adjudicating the issue that tax sought to be evaded was excessive, is erroneous, arbitrary and bad. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, adduce or amen…

Shri Sanjay Somani, Indore vs. The DCIT-5(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed for all

ITA 236/IND/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargbefore Shri Chandra Mohan Gargbefore Shri Chandra Mohan Gargbefore Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena, Accountant & Shri O.P.Meena & Shri O.P.Meena, Accountant & Shri O.P.Meenamember Member

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 148Section 271(1)

…05-06 & I.T.A. No. 236/Ind/2016/AY04-06 Page 10 of 11 penalty cannot be levied, because the income was assessed on estimate basis. We found that similar case has come up before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT, 258 ITR 85 (P&H), wherein it is held that it was a difference of opinion as regards the estimate of income of the assessee, it could not be said that the assessee has concealed the income so as to attract the provisions of Section 271(1)(c). In the instant case, the assessee has filed the return of income and which was reopened on the basis of the statement…

Ashok Kumar Arora, Rewari vs. ITO, Rewari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5015/DEL/2016[20110-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2017

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotraassessment Year : 2010-11 Ashok Kumar Arora, Ito, Ward- 1, H.No.5330, Nalbandan, Rewari. Vs. Rewari Pan : Aappa 6575 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anubhav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri, Sr.DR
Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…e Delhi High Court confirmed the deletion of penalty by Tribunal, which was 4 levied on estimate basis after rejection of books of account. Ld. counsel also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT, 258 ITR 85 (P&H), wherein also the penalty was deleted which was levied on the basis of additions made on estimate basis, inter-alia, observing that there had to be a positive act of concealment on the part of the assessee and the onus was to prove this on the Department. Ld. counsel relied on the decision of the ITAT, Lucknow Bench in the case of Sahyog Sa…

ACIT, Cir-40, Kolkata vs. M/S Deepak Construction Co., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 179/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…d have gone through the impugned order. The order passed by the Tribunal is based upon two decisions of this Court in CIT vs. Ravail Singh & Co. (2002) 173 CTR (P&H) 429 : (2002) 254 ITR 191 (P&H) and Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 177 CTR (P&H) 580 : (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H). In both these decisions, this Court has held that in order to attract cl. (c) of s. 271(1) of the Act, it is necessary that there must be concealment by the assessee of the particulars of his income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. The provisions of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act are not ITA No. 179/Kol/14 M/s. Deepak Constr…

Jasmit Singh Tibb, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby Allowed

ITA 2225/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.2225/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Jasmit Singh Tibb. बनाम/ Income Tax Officer Dr. Charat Singh Bungalow, 20(1)(3) Vs. Dr. Charat Singh Colony, Piramal Chambers Andheri (East) Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 093 Mumbai - 400012 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagpt0546G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. C. Omi Ningshen
Section 271(1)(c)

…n this regard we support of the law settled in the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case titled as CIT Vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Delhi) and Hon’ble Punjab and Hariyana High Court in case titled as Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case titled as CIT ITA No.2225.M.16 A.Y. 2007-08 Vs. Subhash Trading Co. 221 ITR 110 (Guj.). wherein It is specifically held that the income if any assessed on estimated basis and that by itself does not lead to the conclusion that the assessee either concealed the particulars of his income or furnished in…

Sriramkrishna Security Services, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 35, Mumbai

In the result, all the 22 appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 5792/MUM/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Ram Lal Negii.

Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)

…is concerned. In support of this, ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to various decisions viz., (i) CIT vs. Aero Traders P Ltd [2010] 322 ITR 316 (Delhi); (ii) CIT vs. Smt. K. Meenakshi Kutty (258 ITR 494) (Mad); (iii) Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (258 ITR 85) (P&H) etc. On the other hand, the case of the Revenue is that though it is a case of estimations, the disclosure goes back to the search action. 9. On hearing both the parties, we find, the penalty orders in all these cases are of routine type. No assessment-year-specific-concealment was made out by the Assessing Officer. So far as the appeals in…

Sri Harjit Singh Sall, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-50(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 576/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ITA No. 1237/Kol/2013 for the AY 2008-09. He argued that the Tribunal restricted the agriculture income at Rs.10,00,000/- on estimation and penalty cannot be imposed on the basis of estimation and relied on the decisions in the cases of Hari Gopal reported in 258 ITR 85 (P&H), Ravail Singh reported in 254 ITR 191 (P&H) and Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd reported in 303 ITR 53 (P&H) for such proposition and placed on record at page 64 of the paper book. 9. On the contrary, the Ld.DR submits that the assessee could not produce any explanation either in assessment proceedings or penalty proceedings before the AO and r…

Sonali A. Shah, Mumbai vs. I.T.O 14(3) (3), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5720/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2007-08 Mrs. Sonali A. Shah, I.T.O. – 14(3), Raj Parashar, Earnest House, 3Rd Floor, Nariman Point, Flat No.301-2-3, Vs. Mumbai – 21 95/F, Indranarayan Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Agdps 6844D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Aditya R. Ajgaonkar, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Aditya R. Ajgaonkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 144Section 145Section 271(1)(c)

…he following decisions for the proposition when income is estimated penalty is not attracted. 1. CIT(A) vs. Metal Products of India 150 ITR 714 (P & H) 2. CIT vs. S. Rahamat Khan Birbalkhan Badruddin and Party 240 ITR 778 (Rajasthan) 3. Harigopal Sing vs. CIT 258 ITR 85 (P & H) 4. Shri Narayansingh J. Deora vs. ACIT (ITA No.5895/Mum/2010 dated 09.12.2011) The Ld. Counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Ltd. (322 ITR 158) and submits that making incorrect claim does not amount to concealment of particulars, therefore no penalty is att…

Thakkar Popatlal Velji Sales Ltd., Panvel vs. DCIT, Central Circle 25, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5795/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Thakkar Popatlal Velji Acit, Sales Ltd. Central Circle-25, 4Th Floor, बनाम/ Office No.2, Neel Presidency, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Opp. Telephone Exchange, Dr. M. K. Road, Panvel, Raigad, Mumbai-400020 Maharashtra-410206 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabct7939D "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Manish Sanghvi Shri B.D. Naik-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 25/08/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh () The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The By The Impugned Order Dated 20/06/2013 Of The Ld. First Appellate Authority

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…s to be adopted. This proposition is supported by the ratio laid down in CIT vs Vegetable Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 (SC), CIT vs Kohinoor Flour Mills (99 ITR 54, 65-66)(Guj.), Addl. CIT vs Bihar Textiles (100 ITR 253, 257)(Pat.) and Harigopal Singh V CIT (2002)258 ITR 85(Punj & Har), supports our view. Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. This order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of hearing on 25/08/2016. (Ashwani Taneja) (Joginder Singh) लेखा सद"य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "या"यक सद"य / JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; "दनांक Dated : 06/…

Karamjit Singh Dhanjal, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Smt. Diva Singh & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. V.R. Sachdev, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT/DR
Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

…ls Ltd. (2009) 312 ITR (P&H) where in all particulars relating to computation of income were disclosed, the cancellation of penalty under section 271 (1)( C) was held to be justified. Identical ratio was laid down in the case of Hari Gopal Singh Vs CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 {P&H) and CIT Vs SSP P. Ltd (2008) 302 ITR 43 (P&H). 7 ITA No.290/Del./2014 The Supreme Court in the case of Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd Vs Asst. CST (1980) 124 ITR 15 has held that unless the filing of an inaccurate return is accompanied by a guilty mind, penalty could not be imposed. It has been further held that the return could not be…

Sh. Ajay Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1259/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Ms Suchitra Kamble, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…0) 322 ITR 316 (Del) has held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied when income is determined on estimate basis. Similar view has been taken by several other High Courts including the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana HIgh Court in Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and CIT vs. Dhillon Rice Mills (2002) 256 ITR 447 (P&H). As the penalty on account of low household withdrawals is simply on the basis of an estimate made by the AO, which has been partly reduced, we are satisfied that no penalty can be levied on the basis of such an estimate of ITA No.1259 & 1260/Del/2014 household expenses. Ergo, we delete…

Sh. Ajay Gupta, Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 4144/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Ms Suchitra Kamble, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…0) 322 ITR 316 (Del) has held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied when income is determined on estimate basis. Similar view has been taken by several other High Courts including the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana HIgh Court in Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and CIT vs. Dhillon Rice Mills (2002) 256 ITR 447 (P&H). As the penalty on account of low household withdrawals is simply on the basis of an estimate made by the AO, which has been partly reduced, we are satisfied that no penalty can be levied on the basis of such an estimate of ITA No.1259 & 1260/Del/2014 household expenses. Ergo, we delete…

M/S. Zamindara Timber Traders, Karnal vs. ITO, Karnal

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2964/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Deepanshu Jain &For Respondent: Shri N.J. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…Court in CIT vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Del), has held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed when income is determined on estimate basis. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble P&H High Court in Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company, 221 ITR 110 (Guj). In view of the foregoing precedents including the one from the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, it is apparent that when the bedrock of instant penalty is the estimate of income, the same cannot be sustained. Overturning the 3 impugned order, I orde…

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

…Court in CIT vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Del), has held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed when income is determined on estimate basis. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble P&H High Court in Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company, 221 ITR 110 (Guj). I also find that similar view was taken by the ITAT, SMC, Bench, New Delhi in ITA No. 519/Del/2014 (AY 2009-10) in the case of Rajiv Kumar Garg vs. ITO vide order dated 4 15.6.2015. In view of the foregoing precedents including the one from the Hon’b…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Cadbury India Ltd

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/1397/2008HC Delhi28 Mar 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 133ASection 194Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)Section 271C

…30.8.95, issued by CBDT, are very much clear. … Even otherwise for imposition of penalty, the general presumption is that definite finding about concealment is necessary. The Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Gopal Singh vs CIT (258 ITR 85) clearly held that penalty cannot be levied when income has been estimated. The identical ratio will be applicable that no penalty may be imposed when there is a difference of opinion. Even the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Anwar Ali (76 ITR 696) (SC) clearly held that finding in the assessment proceedings are not conclusive, therefor…