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

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

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 202/CTK/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

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 201/CTK/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

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.Enterprisera, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 200/CTK/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

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 199/CTK/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2004-05

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…

Prompt Toys Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO -7(3) (4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2068/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Prompt Toys Pvt. Ltd ITO-7(3)(4) G-10/B Laxmi Mill Room No. 142-E, 1st Compound, Shakti Mill Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Lane, Mahalaxmi, v/s M K Road, Mumabai-400011 Mumbai-4000020 PAN AABCP4737D Appellant Respondent Assessee by None Department by Mr. Dinesh Singh Date of Hearing 20-07-2022 Date of Pronouncement 17-10-2022 ORDER PER KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL :- This appeal has been filed by the assessee as against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-13, Mumbai pertaining to AY 2009-10. The solitary issue in…

Jitendrakumar Bhailal Dodiya, Savarkundla vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Amreli

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 45/RJT/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…on presumption and estimated basis. It is settled law no penalty in respect of addition made on estimated basis can be levied. The assessee relies on the following: 1. 106 ITR 672 (All.) - Mussadilal Singh 2. 150 ITR 714 (P & H) - Metal Products of India 3. 258 ITR 85 (P & H) - HarigopaJ Singh 4. 140 !TR 943 (Bom.) - Devendas Eprumal Co. 5. 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) - Krushi Tire Rt. & Rubber Ind. 2.1.1 It may also be submitted that at Para 4.3 page no. 4 of the assessment order the Ld. A.O. has mentioned that ............... A penalty proceeding U/s. 271(1) (c) of the Act is separately initiated for this default....…

Shri Krishanmohan Ramwadh Shingh, Jamnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Jamnagar

In the result appeal, of the assessee is allowed

ITA 379/RJT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…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.” 10. Sim…

Shri Vijay J. Faldu, Upleta vs. The ITO, Ward-1 (4), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 110/RJT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ease to delete the penalty levied. 1.3 It may also be submitted that the Ld. A.O. has made addition of profit elements on estimate basis therefore penalty cannot be levied assessee also placed reliance on decision given by Hon. High Court Of Punjab & Haryana 258 ITR 85 it was held that provision of Sec.271(1)(c) are not attracted to cases where income of an assessee is assessed on estimate basis arid addition are made therein on that basis thus penalty levied may kindly be deleted. 1.4 It is also submitted that the amount retain at 10% is also purely on estimated basis and no solid proof / evidence for determin…

M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circel-7(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 128/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…8/Ahd/14 & 6 Ors. [M/s. Asian Agency] - 21 - 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. 37.3 S…

M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circel-7(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 127/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…8/Ahd/14 & 6 Ors. [M/s. Asian Agency] - 21 - 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. 37.3 S…

M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circel-7(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 126/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…8/Ahd/14 & 6 Ors. [M/s. Asian Agency] - 21 - 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. 37.3 S…

M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel-7(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3448/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…8/Ahd/14 & 6 Ors. [M/s. Asian Agency] - 21 - 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. 37.3 S…

M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, VII, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 844/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…8/Ahd/14 & 6 Ors. [M/s. Asian Agency] - 21 - 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. 37.3 S…

The ITO, Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3336/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…8/Ahd/14 & 6 Ors. [M/s. Asian Agency] - 21 - 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. 37.3 S…

M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-12, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3048/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…8/Ahd/14 & 6 Ors. [M/s. Asian Agency] - 21 - 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. 37.3 S…

Mohd. Jamal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 62(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8927/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Jain, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. D. R
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

…hould not attract penal provisions under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We draw support from the following decisions :- (i) CIT Vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. [322 ITR 316 (Del.)] (ii) CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Co. [221 ITR 110 (Guj.)] (iii) Hargopal Singh Vs. CIT [258 ITR 85 (P&H)]. 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24/08/2022 ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) ( C. N. PRASAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 24/08/2022 *MEHTA*…

Hemal Maganlal Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 285/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalhemal Maganlal Shah 84, 4Th Floor, Pankaj-B, Lbs Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086. Pan: Amfps8271G ...... Appellant Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. H.M. Shah Respondent By : Sh. Prasoon Kabra Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. H.M. ShahFor Respondent: Sh. Prasoon Kabra
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 274Section 69C

…Surat Fashions Ltd. vs. ACIT [2011-ITRV-ITAT-AHD-124] 2. Narayansingh J. Deora vs. ACIT [2011-ITRV-ITAT-MUM-283] 3. CIT Vs. Gordhandas Moolchand 116 ITR 893 (Mad.) 4. C.LT. Vs. Sureshkumar Bansal and another 254 ITR 130 (P & H) 5. Harigopal Singh Vs. C.I. T. 258 ITR 85 (P & H) 6. C.1.T. Vs. Raj Bans Singh 276 ITR 351 (All) 7. CIT v/s. Mahendra Sigh Khedia (2012) 252 CTR 453 -Raj HC 8. CIT vis. Vijay Kumar Jain (2010) 325 ITR 288-Chhatishgadh HC 9. CIT vs. Aero Traders P Ltd (2010)322 ITR 316- Delhi HC" 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income on 12.10.2010 declaring total…

ITO 27(2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Padma Industries, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2366/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalito 27(2)(1) Vs. M/S Padma Industries Room No. 413, 4Th Floor, A/18, Muni Suvrat Tower No.6, Vashi Darshan, Navroji Lane, Railway Station Complex, (Cama Lane), Ghatkopar Vashi, Navi (W), Mumbai - 400086 Mumbai -400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaifp9236D Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi
Section 271(1)(c)

…erala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. P.K. Narayanan (1999) 238 ITR 905 (Ker); Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Del); Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P & H), ITAT, Mumbai in the case of ITA Vs. Goldstar Jewellery India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 5466/Mum/2019 order dated 27.07.2021. ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Unisynth Chemicals 5967/Mum/2014, ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Ajay Loknath Lohia vide ITA No. 2998/Mum/2017, ITAT Ahd, in the case of Ruchi Developers vide ITA No. 3348/Ahd/2011, ITAT, Mumbai, i…

Dilawar Shaikh, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 935/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.933 To 935/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 Dilawar Shaikh, Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Super Profiles Pvt. Ltd., 13-A, Parvati Industrial Estate, Pune – Satara Road, Pune-411026. Pan : Aljps3300F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. D. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessees Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Commonly Dated 23.032018 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.933/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri S. D. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…(P&H) held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable in case the addition made is based on the estimate basis. Similar view also taken by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ravail Singh & Co., 254 ITR 191, Harigopal Singh vs. CIT, 258 ITR 85 and CIT v. Dhillon Rice Mills, 256 ITR 447. 13. The decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the cases cited above supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not proper. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete th…

Dilawar Shaikh, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 934/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.933 To 935/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 Dilawar Shaikh, Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Super Profiles Pvt. Ltd., 13-A, Parvati Industrial Estate, Pune – Satara Road, Pune-411026. Pan : Aljps3300F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. D. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessees Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Commonly Dated 23.032018 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.933/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri S. D. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…(P&H) held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable in case the addition made is based on the estimate basis. Similar view also taken by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ravail Singh & Co., 254 ITR 191, Harigopal Singh vs. CIT, 258 ITR 85 and CIT v. Dhillon Rice Mills, 256 ITR 447. 13. The decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the cases cited above supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not proper. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete th…