Harigopal Singh v. CIT

ITO-32(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Pravin Dayaldas Gandhi, Mumbai

In the result, these revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

…71(1)(c))cannot be levied on ad hoc addition. The facts of the instant case are exactly identical to the facts of M/s. Chempure discussed above. Reliance is also placed on the decision on Hon’ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopa 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 Assessing…

ITO 22(1)(6), Mumbai vs. Broadcasting Services, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

…7 ITA.NO. 1312/MUM/2020 (A.Y: 2009-10) M/s. Broadcasting Services 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…

Asst CIT 32 (2), Mumbai vs. Mangalsingh M Rathore, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.07/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Acit-32(2) Mangal Singh M. Rathore 720, 7Th Floor, Kautilya B-1, Neela Apt, Svp Road, Vs. Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Borivali (W), Mumbai- Block, Bkc, Bandra (E), 400092. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaipr6967M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/07/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/09/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.10.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -44 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11 In Which The Penalty Levied By Ao Has Been Order To Be Deleted.

…nath Lohia in ITA. No.2998/Mum/2017. Undoubtedly, it is specifically held that no penalty is liable to be sustainable where the profit was estimated on the estimation basis. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P & H), CIT vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd., 322 ITR 316 (Del) & CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Co., 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) Taking into account of all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Accordi…

ACIT 26 (1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Ghanshyam T Gursahani, Mumbai

In the result Revenue's appeal is dismissed

…. Ltd., reported in 322 ITR 316 (Del), has held that no penalty u/s 271(l)(c) can be imposed whoa income is determined on estimate basis. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigop U Singh vs. C1T reported in 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the Hon'ble Gujarat High 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 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, th…

ACIT- Circle- 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Gala Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

…e are inclined to uphold the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the revenue.” 7 ITA.NO. 6007/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10) M/s. Glow Pharma Pvt. Ltd., 6. 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…

Income Tax Officer-28 (1)(5), Mumbai vs. Ganesh Engineering Workshop, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

…NO. 5773/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2010-11) M/s. Ganesh Engineering Workshop 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…

Maredia Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO 31 (2)(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6868/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Maredia Enterprises बिधम/ Ito-31(2)(3) Mumbai Now 1404, Arcadia, Ncpa Marg, Assessed By Ito 17(2)(3) Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai- Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, 400021. Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamfm4130B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/05/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27 /07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 16.09.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, 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.

…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…

ITO 29(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Ashapura Mould Plast, Mumbai

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4075/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-29(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Ashapura Mould Plast Room No.403, 4Th Floor, Gala No.100, 2Nd Floor, New Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Near, Unique, Industrial Estate, Dr. Videsh Bhavan, Bandra R. P. Road, Mulund (W), Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400080. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfa1268M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Brajendra Kumar (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/06/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 05.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -39, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "(1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Penalty U/S 271(1)(1)(C) Of Rs.81,690/- As The Addition Was On Account A.Y.2009-10 Of Bogus Purchase Of Rs.2,64,355/- @ 12.5% On Bogus Purchased Of Rs.21,14,840/- From Hawala Parties.

…e finding that the purchases were bogus. Further, I find that the quantum addition is based on estimate. In my view the penalty is not sustainable in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H). In that case, the question of law before the Hon'ble Court was whether penalty is attracted under section 271(1)(c) of the Act where income is assessed purely on estimate basis 3 A.Y.2009-10 and additions are made in the declared income on that basis. In that case the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana held as under: "3. In order to at…

Income Tax Officer 12(1) |(1), Mumbai vs. Ami Riddhi Chem. Private Limited, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.5748 To 5750/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Ito-12(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Ami Riddhi Chem Pvt. Room No.226, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Office No.3, Gikul Apartments, Road, Mumbai-400020. Haridas Nagar, Shimpoli Road, Borivali West, Mumbai- 400092. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagca7111H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Brajendra Kumar (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Ajay Singh (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/06/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 22.05.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 20, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted.

…hat there is no 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." 5.2 I also find that the facts in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) is similar to the facts of the appellant's case. In that case, the question of law before the Hon'ble Court was whether penalty is attracted under section 271(1)(c) of the Act where income is assessed purely on estimate basis and additions are made in the declared income on that basis. In that case, the Honible High Court of Punjab & Haryana…

ITO 12 (3)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Mehta Infocom Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7678/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-12(3)(4) बिधम/ M/S. Mehta Infocom Pvt. Room No.145, 1St Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Mehta House, Af/3, Cama Road, Mumbai-400020. Industrial Estate, Nr, Hub Mall, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400065. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafcm2000E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/05/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.09.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -20, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "(1) 1. On The Facts & 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.4,76,659/- Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessee Claimed Bogus Purchases In Its Original Return Of Income & Thus Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Within The Meaning Of Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Ita Nos. 7678/M/2019 A.Y.2009-10 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Hon'Ble

…held as under: "6. We have heard counsel for the appellant and have gone through the impugned order. 7. The order passed by the ITAT is based upon two decisions of this Court in CIT v. Pa vail Singh & Co. [2002] 254 ITR 191 and Hori Gopol Singh v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85. In both these decisions, this Court has held that in order to attract clause (c) of section 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 section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not attracted to cases where the i…

ACIT 13 (3)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Weld Tech Engineers India Private Limited `, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

…d 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.” 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 th…

Dy CIT-9(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Apex Softcell (India) Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

…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.” 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…

Dy CIT-9(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Apex Softcell (India) Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

…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.” 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…

Aas Mohammed Khan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

…rdingly, we are inclined to uphold the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the revenue.” 7 ITA.NO. 5985/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10) AAS Mohammed Khan 6. 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-20(20)(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Kamrulla Rehatulla Khan, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

…re inclined to uphold the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the revenue.” 7 ITA.NO. 5737/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10) Shri Kamrullah Rehmatulla Khan 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)(5), Mumbai vs. Empee Engineering Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

…he order passed by the ld.CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the revenue.” 7 ITA.NOs. 6797 & 6798/MUM/2019 (A.Ys: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/s. Empee Engineering Corporation 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)(5), Mumbai vs. Empee Engineering Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

…he order passed by the ld.CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the revenue.” 7 ITA.NOs. 6797 & 6798/MUM/2019 (A.Ys: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/s. Empee Engineering Corporation 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…

Income Tax Officer, 12(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Autonum Controls Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

…inclined to uphold the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the revenue.” 7 ITA.NO. 5660/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2010-11) M/s. Autonum Controls Pvt. Ltd., 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…