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

ITO Ward 1, Palghar vs. Shri. Atul Kumar D Shah, Palghar

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5553/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…y, we are inclined to uphold the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the revenue.” 7 ITA.NO. 5553/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10) Shri Atul Kumar D. Shah 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…

Income Tax Officer-25(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Samrat Exports, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5033/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2021AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 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.” 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…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Thane vs. M/S. Shr Industries, Thane

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5013/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 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.” 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…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Thane vs. M/S. Shr Industries, Thane

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5012/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 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.” 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…

ITO 12 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. Selvaraj Anthony Muthu Chettiar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4642/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

….NO. 4642/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10) Selvaraj Anthony Muthu Chettiar we are inclined to uphold the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the revenue.” 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…

ITO, Ward-20(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Mr. Sadiq Mohammed Hussain Dadan, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4560/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 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.” 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, Ward-20(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Mr. Sadiq Mohammed Hussain Dadan, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4559/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 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.” 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…

ACIT- Circle- 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Creative Electrical Innovative Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5389/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bleacit – Circle - 6(2)(1) V. M/S. Creative Electrical Innovative Pvt. Ltd., Unit No. 12, 18B, Hammer Smith Indl. Estate Room No. 504, 5Th Floor Pathare Marg, Off. Sitala Devi Temple Road Aayakar Bhavan Mahim (W), Mumbai - 400016 M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aadcc4035H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…s. Accordingly, 7 M/s. Creative Electrical Innovative Pvt. Ltd., 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…

DCIT CC-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ruby Mills Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3958/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit Central Circle 8(4) Vs. M/S. Ruby Mills Ltd., Room No.658, 6Th Floor 11Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan Ruby House, J.K. Sawant M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Marg, Dadar (W) Mumbai – 400 028 Pan/Gir No.Aaact0220G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

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

…mpugned order. 5 M/s. Ruby Mills Ltd., The order passed by the Tribunal is based upon two decisions of this Court in CIT vs. Ravail Singh & Co. (2002) 173 CTR (P&H) 429 : (2002) 254 ITR 191 (P&H) and Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 177 CTR (P&H) 580 : (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H). In both these decisions, this Court has held that in order to attract cl. (c) of s. 271(1) of the Act, it is necessary that there must be concealment by the assessee of the particulars of his income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. The provisions of s. 271(l)(c) of the Act are not attracted to cases where the income o…

ACIT, Circle Panchkula, Panchkula vs. M/S V.K.Sood Engineers & Contractor, Panchkula

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 79/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 79/Chd/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 बनाम The Acit, M/S V.K. Sood Engineers & Circle, Panchkula Contractor Ddsjv, Unit-Iii, H.No. 20, Sector-6 Panchkula-134109, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aagfv0584J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “B”,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI R.L NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 79/CHD/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 बनाम The ACIT, M/s V.K. Sood Engineers & Circle, Panchkula Contractor DDSJV, Unit-III, H.No. 20, Sector-6 Panchkula-134109, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AAGFV0584J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Hearing through video Conferencing िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee by : Shri Vineet Krishan, Advocate राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue by : Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date of Hearing : 12/01/2021 उदघोषणाक"तारीख/D…

ACIT 12(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Harisons Steels Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3979/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalacit – 12(2)(2) M/S. Harisons Steels Ltd., बनाम/ Rm. No. 262/145, 1St Floor Plot No. Survey Gut No. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 194, Nehroli Taluka Wada, Mumbai Thane – 421312. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach8891D .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gurbinder Singh, DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…rces is the exception to the monitory limit prescribed under CBDT instruction No. 3/2018 dated 11.7.2018 as amended on 20.08.2018. We find the Ld.CIT(A) has considered the submissions of the assessee and relied on the decision of Harigopal Singh Vs.CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) referred at page 3 para 5 to 5.2 of the order as under: “5. Decisions on ground of appeal No.1 ITA No. 3919 /Mum/2019 M/s Harisons Steel Ltd, Mumbai. 5.1 I have considered the rival contentions. I find from the order of the CIT(A) that the sum of Rs. 5,09,650/- in respect of which the penalty was imposed based on estimate. The said sum wa…

ITO - 13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Viva Composite Panel Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5708/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Ravish Sood, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5708/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आिकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5709/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito-13(3)(3) M/S Viva Composite Panel Pvt. Ltd. बिाम/ R.No.227, 2 Nd Floor Unit No.7, New Tejpal Estate Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Road Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 072 स्थािीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcv-9909-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Vallabh Parmar – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 27/10/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 27/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2010-11 & 2011-12 Contest Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Qua Deletion Of Certain Penalty U/S 271(1)(C). In The Said Orders, Ld. Cit(A) Has Deleted Penalty Of Rs.1 Lac & Rs.0.87 Lac For Ays 2010-11 & 2011-

For Appellant: Shri Vallabh Parmar – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…d the same by observing that the penalty could not be levied where the additions were made on estimated basis. For the said proposition, reliance was placed, inter-alia, on the binding decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Harigopal Singh V/s CIT 258 ITR 85 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT V/s Subhash Trading Co. 221 ITR 110 besides host of various Tribunal decisions which are already enumerated in the impugned order. Therefore, the penalty was deleted. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. ITA Nos.5708-5709/Mum/2018 M/s Viva Composite Panel Private Limited Assessment Years :20…

ITO - 13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Viva Composite Panel Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5709/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Ravish Sood, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5708/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आिकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5709/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito-13(3)(3) M/S Viva Composite Panel Pvt. Ltd. बिाम/ R.No.227, 2 Nd Floor Unit No.7, New Tejpal Estate Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Road Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 072 स्थािीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcv-9909-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Vallabh Parmar – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 27/10/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 27/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2010-11 & 2011-12 Contest Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Qua Deletion Of Certain Penalty U/S 271(1)(C). In The Said Orders, Ld. Cit(A) Has Deleted Penalty Of Rs.1 Lac & Rs.0.87 Lac For Ays 2010-11 & 2011-

For Appellant: Shri Vallabh Parmar – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…d the same by observing that the penalty could not be levied where the additions were made on estimated basis. For the said proposition, reliance was placed, inter-alia, on the binding decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Harigopal Singh V/s CIT 258 ITR 85 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT V/s Subhash Trading Co. 221 ITR 110 besides host of various Tribunal decisions which are already enumerated in the impugned order. Therefore, the penalty was deleted. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. ITA Nos.5708-5709/Mum/2018 M/s Viva Composite Panel Private Limited Assessment Years :20…

ACIT 12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Ehara Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 3296/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh
Section 271(1)(c)

…als before the first appellate authority. 4. After considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of facts and material on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals) relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble P&H High Court in Hari Gopal Singh v/s CIT, 258 ITR 85 (P&H), deleted the penalty imposed in both the assessment years. 5. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material on record. As could be seen from the facts on record, on the basis of some information received from the Sales Tax Department, the Assessing Officer treated certain purchases made by the assessee durin…

ACIT 12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Ehara Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3295/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआअसं. 3295/मुं/2019 ("न. व.2011-12) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax 12(2)(1), Room No.128E, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Ehara Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Gala No.3 & 7, Sant Bhawan, Sharma Industrial Estate, Walbhat Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai 400 063 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Pan: Aaace2667E

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap SinghFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “ई ” IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं. 3295/मुं/2019 ("न. व.2011-12) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 12(2)(1), Room No.128E, 1st Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/s. Ehara Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Gala No.3 & 7, Sant Bhawan, Sharma Industrial Estate, Walbhat Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai 400 063 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent PAN: AAACE2667E अपीलाथ…

ITO - 29(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Smt Hema Jayesh Parekh, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3095/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2020AY 2010-11
Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) I.T.A. No. 3095/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2010-11) ITO-29(1)(4) Smt. Hema Jayesh Parekh Vs. Room No. 406 1301, Shree Nath Tower 4th Floor, Kautilya L.T. Extension Road Bhavan, Near Videsh Mulund West Bhavan Mumbai-400 080. BKC, Bandra Easts Mumbai-400 051. PAN : AQLPP5420E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Shri Akhtar H. Ansari Date of Hearing 15.09.2020 Date of Pronouncement 16.09.2020 O R D E R This is in appeal by the revenue in the Revenue is aggrieved that the learned CIT(appeals) has erred in deleting…

Shri Harish Tambi, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 970/JPR/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2020AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena , Addl. CIT- DR
Section 271(1)

…at Khan Birbal Khan Badruddin & Party, 240 ITR 778 (Raj.) 2. ACIT Vs. Bansiwala Iron & Steel Re-rolling Mills, 21 TW 533 (JP) 3. CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Co., 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) 9 Shri Harish Tambi vs DCIT, Central Circle-1, ,Jaipur 4. Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT, 258 ITR 85 (P&H) 5. ACIT Vs. Ganpat Lal Goyal, 32 TW 91 (JP) In view of the aforesaid facts it is a case most justified for deletion of the penalty. 3. Definite Finding about concealment is necessary - Under section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regar…

Shri Vishnu Tambi, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 965/JPR/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2020AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena , Addl. CIT- DR
Section 271(1)

…at Khan Birbal Khan Badruddin & Party, 240 ITR 778 (Raj.) 2. ACIT Vs. Bansiwala Iron & Steel Re-rolling Mills, 21 TW 533 (JP) 3. CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Co., 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) 9 Shri Vishnu Tambi vs DCIT, Central Circle-1, ,Jaipur 4. Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT, 258 ITR 85 (P&H) 5. ACIT Vs. Ganpat Lal Goyal, 32 TW 91 (JP) In view of the aforesaid facts it is a case most justified for deletion of the penalty. 3. Definite Finding about concealment is necessary - Under section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regar…

ACIT - Circle- 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Colo Color Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5390/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Bleacit – Circle – 6(2)(1) V. M/S. Colo Color Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 504, 5Th Floor 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dadar Departmental Stores Mumbai – 400 020 M.C. Jawle Marg, Dadar(W) Mumbai – 400 028 Pan: Aabcc3349L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dinkle Hariya Department By : Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora

For Appellant: Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…de 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 M/s. Colo Color 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…

Vijay B Shah (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO-17(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 913/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blevijay B Shah (Huf) V. Income Tax Officer – 17(3)(5) Room No.137 12A Giriraj Building Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road St Road, Carnac Bunder Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 092 Pan: Aabhv7438J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Smt Samatha Mullamuddi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Samatha Mullamuddi
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.” 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…