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

Shivnandan Prasad & Sons, Hapur vs. ITO Ward-2(3)(5), Hapur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 854/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Nitish Garg, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Javed Akhtar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…essing Officer rejected the books of accounts and estimated the net profit and imposed penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act which was sustained by the ld. CIT (Appeals). 6. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Gopal Singh Vs. CIT 258 ITR 85 held that when the additions are made on estimate basis that by itself does not lead to the conclusion that the assessee either concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 316 wherein the…

Shivnandan Prasad & Sons, Hapur vs. ITO Ward-2(3)(5), Hapur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 853/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Nitish Garg, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Javed Akhtar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…essing Officer rejected the books of accounts and estimated the net profit and imposed penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act which was sustained by the ld. CIT (Appeals). 6. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Gopal Singh Vs. CIT 258 ITR 85 held that when the additions are made on estimate basis that by itself does not lead to the conclusion that the assessee either concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 316 wherein the…

DCIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4305/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl Counsel
Section 10Section 10(5)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…erefore, the appeal filed by the revenue had no merits and was to be dismissed." 5.3 It has been held in CIT vs. Dhillon Rice Mills (2002) 256 ITR 447 (P&H) following CIT vs. Metal Products of India (1984) 150 ITR 714 (P&H) and Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) that in a case of addition based upon estimation, there can be no penalty unless the Income-tax Department brings something on record to indicate that there has been concealment on the part of the assessee. 5.4 It has been held in Balaji Vegetable Products P Ltd v CIT (2007) 290 ITR 72(Kar); Gopal D.Shetty v. ITO (2008) 298 ITR (AT) 49 (Pun…

ITO -34(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Manoj Dineshchandra Chitaliya, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1494/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

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

…concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Thus we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 8. Further, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh v. CIT [258 ITR 85] held as under: - “3. On further appeal, the Tribunal reduced the addition to Rs.1,50,000. Hence, the income was finally assessed at Rs.1,50,000 against the declared income of Rs. 52,000. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee by invoking Section 271(1)(c) along with the Explanation 1(B) of the Act on the plea tha…

The Income-Tax Officer -41(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mr Jaiprakash Dhirajlal Barbhaya, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 475/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Bleincome Tax Officer – 41(2)(2) V. Jaiprakash Dhirajlal Barbhaya 301, Mahavir Apartment Room No. 636, 6Th Floor Nahur Road, Sarvodaya Nagar Kautilya Bhavan Mumbai – 400080 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Agppb9599J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…wherein the assessment is made on estimation basis. Accordingly, we are inclined to uphold the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the revenue.” 13. Further, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh v. CIT [258 ITR 85] held as under: - “3. On further appeal, the Tribunal reduced the addition to Rs. 1,50,000. Hence, the income was finally assessed at Rs. 1,50,000 against the declared income of Rs. 52,000. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee by invoking Section 271(1)(c) along with the Explanation 1(B) of the Act on the plea…

Kamlesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-1, New Delhi

In the results, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1079/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…dgment of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Rajiv Kumar Garg vs. ITO in ITA No. 519/Del/2014 the Bench following the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Aero Traders (P) Ltd and the decision of Hon'ble P & H High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the decision of Gujrat High Court in CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company 221 ITR 110 (Guj) has followed the settled legal position that when income is estimated, then, there can be no question of imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and has deleted the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c). Similar view is upheld in the judgment of ITAT, Jaipur…

Kamlesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-1, New Delhi

In the results, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1078/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…dgment of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Rajiv Kumar Garg vs. ITO in ITA No. 519/Del/2014 the Bench following the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Aero Traders (P) Ltd and the decision of Hon'ble P & H High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the decision of Gujrat High Court in CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company 221 ITR 110 (Guj) has followed the settled legal position that when income is estimated, then, there can be no question of imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and has deleted the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c). Similar view is upheld in the judgment of ITAT, Jaipur…

Kamlesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-1, New Delhi

In the results, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1077/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…dgment of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Rajiv Kumar Garg vs. ITO in ITA No. 519/Del/2014 the Bench following the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Aero Traders (P) Ltd and the decision of Hon'ble P & H High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the decision of Gujrat High Court in CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company 221 ITR 110 (Guj) has followed the settled legal position that when income is estimated, then, there can be no question of imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and has deleted the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c). Similar view is upheld in the judgment of ITAT, Jaipur…

Kamlesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-1, New Delhi

In the results, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1076/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…dgment of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Rajiv Kumar Garg vs. ITO in ITA No. 519/Del/2014 the Bench following the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Aero Traders (P) Ltd and the decision of Hon'ble P & H High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the decision of Gujrat High Court in CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company 221 ITR 110 (Guj) has followed the settled legal position that when income is estimated, then, there can be no question of imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and has deleted the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c). Similar view is upheld in the judgment of ITAT, Jaipur…

Kamlesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-1, New Delhi

In the results, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1075/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…dgment of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Rajiv Kumar Garg vs. ITO in ITA No. 519/Del/2014 the Bench following the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Aero Traders (P) Ltd and the decision of Hon'ble P & H High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the decision of Gujrat High Court in CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company 221 ITR 110 (Guj) has followed the settled legal position that when income is estimated, then, there can be no question of imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and has deleted the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c). Similar view is upheld in the judgment of ITAT, Jaipur…

Kamlesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-1, New Delhi

In the results, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1074/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…dgment of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Rajiv Kumar Garg vs. ITO in ITA No. 519/Del/2014 the Bench following the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Aero Traders (P) Ltd and the decision of Hon'ble P & H High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the decision of Gujrat High Court in CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company 221 ITR 110 (Guj) has followed the settled legal position that when income is estimated, then, there can be no question of imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and has deleted the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c). Similar view is upheld in the judgment of ITAT, Jaipur…

Kamlesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-1, New Delhi

In the results, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1073/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…dgment of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Rajiv Kumar Garg vs. ITO in ITA No. 519/Del/2014 the Bench following the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Aero Traders (P) Ltd and the decision of Hon'ble P & H High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the decision of Gujrat High Court in CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company 221 ITR 110 (Guj) has followed the settled legal position that when income is estimated, then, there can be no question of imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and has deleted the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c). Similar view is upheld in the judgment of ITAT, Jaipur…

ITO, Ward-1(1), Thane vs. Mohd.Umar Timber Mart, Thane

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 354/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.353 & 354/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ito, Ward-1(1). Mohd. Umar Timber Room No. 23, B-Wing, 6Th Mart. Floor, Ashar It Park, Near Golden Dyes Co. बिधम/ Wagle Industrial Estate, Highway Service Road, Vs. Thane- 400 604 Haridas Nagar, Thane(W)- 400 601

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…rs Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Del.) wherein it has held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed when income is determined on estimate basis. The similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Co. 221 ITR 110 (Guj.). Moreover, in the assessment order it is mentioned that the appellant has agreed to the addition in order to buy peace and avoid litigation. This is an additional reason which favour the case that penalty should not be imposed on the appellant. 3.4 In light of a…

ITO, Ward-1(1), Thane vs. Mohd.Umar Timber Mart, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 353/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.353 & 354/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ito, Ward-1(1). Mohd. Umar Timber Room No. 23, B-Wing, 6Th Mart. Floor, Ashar It Park, Near Golden Dyes Co. बिधम/ Wagle Industrial Estate, Highway Service Road, Vs. Thane- 400 604 Haridas Nagar, Thane(W)- 400 601

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…rs Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Del.) wherein it has held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed when income is determined on estimate basis. The similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Co. 221 ITR 110 (Guj.). Moreover, in the assessment order it is mentioned that the appellant has agreed to the addition in order to buy peace and avoid litigation. This is an additional reason which favour the case that penalty should not be imposed on the appellant. 3.4 In light of a…

Bhim Singh, Kota Rajasthan vs. DCIT, C-2, Kota

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 91/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Maheshwari, (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…dated 14.09.2020 and also in the cases of CIT vs. S. Rahamat Khan Birbal Khan Badruddin & Party, 240 ITR 778 (Raj.), ACIT vs. Bansiwala Iron & Steel Re-rolling Mills, 21 TW 533 (JP), CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co., 221 ITR 110 (Guj.), Harigopal Singh vs. CIT, 258 ITR 85 (P&H), ACIT vs. Ganpat Lal Goyal, 32 TW 91 (JP). Considering the totality of facts and circumstances as discussed and taking into consideration the factual aspects in the present case, since there is no specific finding by the revenue authorities as to how the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealed his income, no pena…

Anup A. Shah, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Circle-2, Rajkot-Gujarat

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

ITA 106/RJT/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Mar 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 106/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Asstt. Years: 2005-2006 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A

…the ratio laid down in the following cases:— 1. CIT v. Raj Bans Singh [2005] 276 ITR 351 (All.) 2. CWT v. Sanghi Brothers (India) Ltd. [2008] 301 ITR 129 (M.P).; 3. CIT v. Adamkhan [1997] 223 ITR 264/95 Taxman 215 (Mad.); and 4. Harigopal Singh v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85/125 Taxman 242 (Punj. & Har.) In view of above, by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and the same is hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein. No substantial question of law is emerging from the impugned order. 14.4 Si…

M/S Hinglaj Metals & Alloys Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-NFAC Delhi, Delhi

In the result, penalty for both the years are deleted on this technical ground before going into the merits of the cases

ITA 2800/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Jhaveri, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 138Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2800/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2010-11) M/s Hinglaj Metals & Alloys P. Ltd. 2 Sheetal CHSL, Ground Floor, Saptrishi Sankul Ovripada, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. PAN: AAACH9744H ...... Appellant Vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. ..... Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Amit Jhaveri, CA Respondent by : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 02/01/2023 Date of pronouncement : 20/03/2023 ORDER PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: These appeals by assessee are directed against the or…

M/S Hingalj Metals & Alloys Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, penalty for both the years are deleted on this technical ground before going into the merits of the cases

ITA 2798/MUM/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Jhaveri, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 138Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2800/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2010-11) M/s Hinglaj Metals & Alloys P. Ltd. 2 Sheetal CHSL, Ground Floor, Saptrishi Sankul Ovripada, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. PAN: AAACH9744H ...... Appellant Vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. ..... Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Amit Jhaveri, CA Respondent by : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 02/01/2023 Date of pronouncement : 20/03/2023 ORDER PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: These appeals by assessee are directed against the or…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 234/CTK/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…could not be levied. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. K. Meenakshi Kutty, reported in [2002] 258 ITR 494 (Madras), decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh, reported in [2002] 258 ITR 85 (Punjab & Haryana) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Valimkhhai H. Patel, reported in [2006] 280 ITR 487 (GUJ.). All of which was in respect of non-levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act when the income is estimated. The ld. AR further placed before us the copies of the notices issued u/s.274/271(1)(c) of the Act to s…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 233/CTK/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…could not be levied. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. K. Meenakshi Kutty, reported in [2002] 258 ITR 494 (Madras), decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh, reported in [2002] 258 ITR 85 (Punjab & Haryana) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Valimkhhai H. Patel, reported in [2006] 280 ITR 487 (GUJ.). All of which was in respect of non-levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act when the income is estimated. The ld. AR further placed before us the copies of the notices issued u/s.274/271(1)(c) of the Act to s…