How many judgments cite Harigopal Singh v. CIT?

203 judgments on BharatTax cite Harigopal Singh v. CIT (258 ITR 85), spanning 2009 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Harigopal Singh v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 250, Section 145(3), Section 148.

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 147 Section 250 Section 145(3)Section 148 Section 274 Section 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

penalty u/s 271(1)(c)penalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars furnishing inaccurate particulars of income concealment of income section 271(1)levy of penalty section 274 section 271(1)(c)section 271 section 27 section 147

Judgments citing Harigopal Singh v. CIT

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 933/PUN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

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…

Shravan Kumar Mohta, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5602/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

For Appellant: Shri Sumesh SwaniFor Respondent: Sr. D. R

Section 271(1)(c)

…eged non-genuine purchases while completing the assessment. Similar view has been taken in the case of DCIT Vs. Manohar Manak Pvt. Ltd. in ITA. 5586/Mum/2015 dated 16.01.2017. 6. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Gopal Singh Vs. CIT [258 ITR 85] held that when an income is assessed on estimate basis on turnover there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. 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 Hon’ble High Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal in h…

Raj Kumar Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-63(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9046/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.9046/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम Raj Kumar Aggarwal Ito A-129-130, Dda Lig Flats, Vs. Ward 63(3), Motia Khan, Paharganj, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan No. Aajpa5094M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80C

…profit to 5% as against 8% estimated by the AO. The AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) i.e. 5% of gross receipts of Rs.10,53,540/-. 5. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Gopal Singh Vs. CIT (258 ITR 85) held that when addition was made on estimation basis that by itself does not lead to the conclusion that the assessee either concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. 6. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Limited (322 ITR 316), wherei…

Raj Kumari Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Dy CIT, CC-II, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Bhatra (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a

Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…led income or of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income within the provisions of Section 271(1) (c) of the Act. This proposition has been upheld in case of CIT Vs. Dhillon Rice Mills (2002) 256 ITR 209 (ALL) and in case of Hari Gopal Singh Vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85. In both these decisions, it has been held by the Hon’ble Courts that the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) are not attracted to cases where the income of an assessee is assessed on estimate basis and additions are made therein. As per the facts of the present case, the additions were made on estimation basis whereas the gross profit declared by the…

Nbk Infrastructure P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 625/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Garima Sharma, Sr. D. RFor Respondent: 07/06/2022

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

…he 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). I.T.A. No. 625/Del/2018 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…

Shyam Sunder Kansal, U.P vs. Ward 2(3)(2), U.P

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 139/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 50C

…Ltd., reported in 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 Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT reported in 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the Hon’ble Gujarat High 4 Shyam Sunder Kansal Vs. ITO Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company reported in 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 net profit, the same canno…

Harmeet Singh Sablok, Mumbai vs. The ITO WD 22(1) (5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1551/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleharmeet Singh Sablok V. Income Tax Officer – 22(1)(5) A/24, Queens Park Premises Chs Ltd., Piramal Chambers Juhu, Santacruz (W) Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400012 Mumbai - 400049 Pan: Alrps3621D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Turalkar Department By Smt Bharati Singh

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Turalkar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…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.” 10. 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…

I- Serve System Pvt. Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1044/AHD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Shukla, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…is Tribunal on the issue of levy of penalty in the case of ad-hoc addition/disallowance. The propositions laid down in this context in the judicial pronouncements are summarized below:- 9. Their Lordships of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Hari Gopal Vs. CIT [258 ITR 85 (P&H)] held as under:- "In order to attract clause (c) of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it is necessary that there must be concealment by the assessee of the particulars of his income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such [I-Serve Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DC IT] A.Y. 2010-11 income. The provisions of section 271(1)(c) of t…

Dy CIT - 32(1), Mumbai vs. Naresh Traders & Suresh Traders (Joint Venture), Mumbai

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 448/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 448/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit-32(1) बिधम/ Naresh Traders & Suresh Room No.702, 7Th Floor, Traders (Joint Venture) Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra 39A, Ganjawala Apt., Svp Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400092. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaan4364R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anant N. Pai Revenue By: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 11.02.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -44, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S.271(1)(C) Of The It. Act, 1961, Of Rs.27,00,000/- Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessing Officer Has Correctly Held That A.Y.2009-10 The Assessee Bas Failed To Substantiate The Transactions Claimed In Its Return Of Income Thereby Evaded Taxes To That Extent.”

For Appellant: Shri Anant N. PaiFor Respondent: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…71(1)(c) cannot be levied on adhoc addition. The facts of the instant case are exactly identical to the facts of M/s. Chempure vs ITO (supra). 3.5 Reliance is placed on the decision on Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh V CIT (258 ITR 85) wherein it was 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. What is to be seen is whether the assessee in the present case had concealed his income as held by the Assessin…

Dy CIT, Circle-3, Thane vs. Shri Shibshankar Ghosh, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 172/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 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…

Shri Jai Hind Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-5(4), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 146/JPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…d on the following decisions: - 1. CIT Vs. S. Rahamat Khan Birbal Khan Badruddin & Party, 240 ITR 778 (Raj.) 2. ACTT Vs. Bansiwala Iron & Steel Re-rolling Mills, 21 TW 533 (JP) 3. CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Co., 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) 4. Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT, 258 ITR 85 (P&H) 5. ACTT Vs. Gan Pat Lal Goyal, 32 TW 91 (JP) In view of the aforesaid facts it is a case most justified for deletion of the penalty. Addition sustained of 5,90,320/- out of Rs. 32,38,590/- (5) The second addition sustained by the learned CIT(A) on account of this addition by mentioning following – I have considered the above mentioned fa…

Shri Chandan Bhardwaj, Tarn Taran vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Amritsar

ITA 455/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sh. K. R. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 22Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…the penalty is not attracted in the case of the assessee, as the the addition was made on estimated basis, the issue is settled by various the Hon’ble High Court. 9. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of ‘Harigopal Singh vs. CIT’, reported at 258 ITR 85 (HC) (P&H) held that the Additions to income made, on estimate basis and 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. The provisions of s. 271 (1)(c) are not attracted to cases where income of an assessee is assessed on estimate b…

Sh. Jinder Pal, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4(2), Amritsar

ITA 591/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sh. K. R. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 22Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Ganesh Vishnu Khanolkar, Mumbai vs. ACIT 26 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1409/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1409/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिधम/ Ganesh Vishnu Khanolkar Acit 26(1) C-11, Bldg, 701, 7Th Floor, 101, Sai Samman Co. Op. Vs. Soc, Plot No. 28-29, Union Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Park, Chembur, Mumbai- Bkc, Bandra (East), 400071. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadpk5024D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashok Patil Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/09/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 06.11.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2011-12 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Upholding The Penalty Levied By The Teamed Assessing Officer, Being 100% Of Tax On The Addition To Income U/S 271(1)(E) Of

For Appellant: Shri Ashok PatilFor Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (DR)

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(e)

…e bogus purchase. The income was estimated and addition was raised. No penalty is leviable when the income has been estimated. In this regard, we find support of the decision of Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P & H). We also find support of the decision of the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of National Textiles Vs. CIT 2001 164 CTR 2009 (Guj) in which it is specifically held that the penalty is not leviable when the profit was estimated on estimation basis. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view tha…

Kamlesh M. Kanungo, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CC-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Booman Irani

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

…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.” 11. 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…

ITO Ward -32(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Haresh Ramanbhai Barot, Mumbai

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 160/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Section 27Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri C.N. Prasad (JM) I.T.A. No. 160/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2010-11) ITO Ward-32(1)(1) Haresh Ramanbhai Barot Vs. Room No. 703 A-401, Cosmos Park Kautilya Bhavan M.G. Road, Borivali-East Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai-400 066. Bandra East Mumbai-400 051. PAN : AADPB8615P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Shri Hoshang Booman Irani Date of Hearing 27.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement 01.11.2021 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 17.2.2020…

ITO Ward -32(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Hina Arvind Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 161/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Booman Irani

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

…ngly, 7 ITA.NO. 161/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2010-11) Smt Hina Arvind Shah we are inclined to uphold the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the revenue.” 7. 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…

ITO 32(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Abhay Automotive Company, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 780/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 780/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-32(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Abhay Automotive Room No.703, 7Th Floor, Company Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra B/402, Sumer Nagar Building Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), No.3, Sv Road, Borivali East, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400092. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajfa3745K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Brajendra Kumar (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Kartik Katmutia (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/08/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.11.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2009-10 In Which The Penalty Levied By Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Grounds Of Appeal, On The & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, Of Rs. 1,81,613/- Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessing Officer Has

For Appellant: Shri Kartik Katmutia (AR)For Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM (Hearing through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 780/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITO-32(1)(1) बिधम/ M/s. Abhay Automotive Room No.703, 7th Floor, Company Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra B/402, Sumer Nagar Building Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), No.3, SV Road, Borivali East, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400092. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAJFA3745K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Brajendra Kumar (DR) Assessee by: Shri Kartik Katmut…

Asst. CIT - 32(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Vijay Bhogilal Shah, Mumbai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 106/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.106/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit – 32(1) Shri Vijay Bhogilal Shah, R. No. 702, 7Th Floor B-1203, Pratap Heritage, L T. Road बिाम/ Kautilya Bhavan Borivali (E), Mumbai-400 092 Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(East), Mumbai-51 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Akgps-2700-Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri S. N. Kabra- Ld. Sr. Dr Assessee By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 25/10/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 25/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year [Ay] 2009-10 Arises Out Of The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-44, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 31/08/2020 Which Has Deleted The Penalty Of Rs.7.99 Lacs U/S 271(1)(C) As Levied By Ld. Ao Vide Penalty Order Dated 27/03/2018. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. The Ld. Dr, On The Other Hand, Pleaded For Restoration Of Penalty.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra- Ld. Sr. DR

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

…. The Ld. AO could not prove furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income and therefore, penalty on estimated additions would not be sustainable in terms of decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Harigopal Singh V/s CIT (258 ITR 85). Finally, the penalty was deleted which is in further appeal before us. 3. In our considered opinion, the penalty is not sustainable since the additions are mere estimated additions of unproved purchases and therefore, no case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income could be made out against the assessee. Our af…

Tulsiani Sumer Associates, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Central Circle-5(3), Mumbai

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 1899/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…accurate particulars of income could be made out against the assessee as held by this very bench in the case of ACIT V/s Ehara Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (supra) relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh V/s CIT (258 ITR 85). Therefore, the penalties, for the years, are not sustainable in law. We order so. Both the appeals stand allowed. 5. Order pronounced on 06th October, 2021. (Vikas Awasthy) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) न्याययक सदस्य / Judicial Member लेखा सदस्य / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; यदनांक Dated : 06/10/2021 Sr.PS, Dhananjay आदेशकीप्रधिधलधपअग्रेधर्ि/Copy…