Harigopal Singh v. CIT

ITO, Ward-1(2), Mumbai vs. Mehul Indukumar Parekh, 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 (A.Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Mehul Indukumar Parekh against the declared income of Rs. 52,000. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee by invoking Section 271(1…

ITO, Ward-1(2), Mumbai vs. Mehul Indukumar Parekh, 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 (A.Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Mehul Indukumar Parekh against the declared income of Rs. 52,000. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee by invoking Section 271(1…

ITO, Ward-1(2), Mumbai vs. Mehul Indukumar Parekh, 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 (A.Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Mehul Indukumar Parekh against the declared income of Rs. 52,000. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee by invoking Section 271(1…

R No. 25 B Wing 6Th Floor Ahsar It Park Wagle Indil. Estate Road No 16Z Thane West, Thane vs. Shri. Jignesh Amrutlal Shah, Thane

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer -2(1) V. Shri Jignesh Amrutlal Shah Room No. 25, B-Wing, 6Th Floor A/203, Walchand Complex 90 Feet Road, Bhayander(W) Ashar I.T Park, 6Th Floor Thane – 401 101 Road No. 16Z Wagle Industrial Estate Pan:Accps2511E Thane – 400 604 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jignesh Amrutlal Department By : Shri Bheraram

…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…

ITO Ward 3 (2), Thane vs. Shri. Premkumar Shehgal, Thane

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer -3(2) V. Shri Premkumar Shehgal Gala No. 09, Gupta Deshpande Estate Room No. 4, B-Wing, 6Th Floor Pokhran Road No.1, Upavan Ashar I.T Park, 6Th Floor Thane – 400 604 Road No. 16Z Wagle Industrial Estate Pan:Accps1803K Thane – 400 604 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Sandhya Rathi Department By : Shri Bheraram

…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: - 7 Shri Premkumar Shehgal “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)…

Knight Riders Sorts P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 6 & 7 of appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM I.T.A. No.5237/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) DCIT, Central Circle-4(2), Vs. M/s. Knight Riders Sports P. Mumbai Central Range-4 Pr. Ltd. CIT(C)-2 Backstage, Plot No.-612, R. No.1918, 19th Floor, Air 15th Road, Junction of India Building, Nariman Ramkrishna Mission Road, Point, Mumbai-400021. Santacruz (W), Mumbai- 400054. I.T.A. No.5092/M/2017 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/s. Knight Riders Sports P. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4(2), R. No.1918, 19th Floor, Air Ltd. Backstage, Plot No.-612, 15th India B…

Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4), Mumbai vs. Jagdish R Panchal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 1(4) V. Jagdish R. Panchal Room No. 11, B-Wing B-504, Vasant Vihar Society Ashar I.T Park, 6Th Floor Ghatipada Road, Mulund (W) Road No. 16Z Mumbai – 400 080 Wagle Industrial Estate Thane – 400 604 Pan: Aijpp8167C (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : None

…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.” 9. 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 t…

Satish Saraf, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner Central Circle-4(3), Central Range-4, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

…n income @ 0.03% in the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act, no penalty is leviable u/s.27/(1)(c) of the Act. For this proposition, reliance is placed, on the following decisions:- (i) Harigopal Singh vs. CIT reported in 125 Taxmann 2521258 ITR 85 (P & H). (ii) CIT vs. Smt. K. Meenaksht Kutty 258 ITR 494(Mad). 9 I.T.A. No. 6567, 6605 & 6568/Mum/2017 Satish Saraf (iii) CIT(A) vs. Valimkbhai H. Pate/ 280 ITR 487(Guj). (iv) CIT(A) vs. Raj Bans Singh 276 ITR 351 (All). (v) CIT vs. Lallubhai Jogibhai Pate/ 261 ITR 216(Guj) (vi) CIT vs. Shivnarayan Jamnalal & Co. 232 ITR 311 (NIP). (vii) Navjiv…

I.T.O.19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ramesh B. Doshi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharmaआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 5436/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04) बिधम/ Ito 19(3)(1) Ramesh B. Doshi R.No. 202, 2Nd Floor, Mtru A-1, Maniyar Bldg., Vs. Flat No. 34, 3Rd Floor, Mandir, Tardeo, Road, Mumbai. Near Film Centre, Tardeo, Mumbai. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aadpd3476E (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. अऩीराथी ओय से / Appellant By : Shri R. Bhoopathy, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Rajkumar Singh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing 20/12/2019 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23 /12 /2019

…Vs Aero traders Pvt Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Del) has held that no penalty can be imposed u/s 271 (1 )(c) when income is determined on estimate basis. The similar view has been taken by: Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Harigopal a) Singh Vs CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 Honble Gujrat High Court in CIT Vs Subhash Trading Co b) 221 ITR 110 ITAT, Mumbai in ITO Vs Chhotalal Textiles (P) Ltd 95 c) TTJ 436 ITAT, Mumbai in Sonali A Shah Vs ITO ITA No d) 5720/M/2013 ITAT, Mumbai ITO Vs. Chempure 40 SOT 164 ( 2010). e) Hon'ble Courts have clearly held that penalty levied on estimated income does not comply with the settle…

Sudhir Vora, Mumbai vs. ACIT- CC -3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5108/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1997-98) बिधम/ Sudhir Vora Acit-Cc-3(2) Moheshwar Mension, 602, 18 & 19 Air India Bldg, Vs. 6Th Floor, Bapubhai, Vashi Nariman Point, Mumbai- Road, Vile Parle, Mumbai- 400021. 400056. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapv9690D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A. L. Sharma Revenue By: Shri V. Vinod Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 04.06.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 1997-98 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Order To Be Confirmed.

…orted in 322 ITR 316 (Del), in which it is 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 Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company reported in 221 ITR 110 (Guj). In view of the foregoing precedents, it is apparent that when the bedrock of instant penalty is the estimate of net profit, the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) and direct the…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-25(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Anand Babulal Mehta, Mumbai

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

…that no penalty is leviable on the addition made on the basis of estimation/ad hoc basis. In support of the submission the ld AR of the assessee relied upon the following decision; (i) CIT Versus Ravail Singh & Company 254 ITR 191(P&H), (ii) Harigopal Vs CIT 258 ITR 85 (P&H HC), (iii) ITO Vs Bombaywala Readymade Store[2015]230Taxman 313(Guj H C), (iv) Naresh Chand Aggarwal Versus CIT 357 ITR 515 (All HC), (v) DCIT Versus Manohar Manak ITA 5586/Mumbai/2015, (vi) Yashraj Films Pvt Ltd Versus ACIT ITA 7519/Mumbai/ 2013, (vii) Sarvesh Mercantile Private Ltd Vs ACIT ITA 6040/M/ 2013 and (viii) DCIT versus Risabh Impe…

ITO Ward 25(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Shri. Jai Pravin Gandhi, Mumbai

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

…that no penalty is leviable on the addition made on the basis of estimation/ad hoc basis. In support of the submission the ld AR of the assessee relied upon the following decision; (i) CIT Versus Ravail Singh & Company 254 ITR 191(P&H), (ii) Harigopal Vs CIT 258 ITR 85 (P&H HC), (iii) ITO Vs Bombaywala Readymade Store[2015]230Taxman 313(Guj H C), (iv) Naresh Chand Aggarwal Versus CIT 357 ITR 515 (All HC), (v) DCIT Versus Manohar Manak ITA 5586/Mumbai/2015, (vi) Yashraj Films Pvt Ltd Versus ACIT ITA 7519/Mumbai/ 2013, (vii) Sarvesh Mercantile Private Ltd Vs ACIT ITA 6040/M/ 2013 and (viii) DCIT versus Risabh Impe…

Shri Vivek Talwar, Mumbai vs. ACIT- CC - 46, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanshri Vivek Talwar Acit, Central Cricle-46, Room No. 659, 6Th Floor, 17-B, Ill Palazzo, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai-400006. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaapt3994Q Appellant Respondent Shri Vivek Talwar Acit, Central Cricle-46, Room No. 659, 6Th Floor, 17-B, Ill Palazzo, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai-400006. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaapt3994Q Appellant Respondent

…n basis, which itself would not lead to conclusion that assessee either concealed the property of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT [2002 258 ITR 85], CIT vs. S.Rahmat Khan Birbalkhan Badruddin [1999 240 ITR 778] and CIT vs. Smt. Meenakshi Kutty [(2002) 258 ITR 494]. 9. The ld. AR of the assessee on the disallowance of professional fees of Rs. 65,000/- submits that legal fees of Rs. 65,000/- was paid to Shri Ajay Majithai, Advocate, for representing the assessee before the Enforcement 7 I…

Hiralal Kalpur Gupta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(5), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7446/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ Hiralal Kalpu Gupta Ito Ward 2(5) 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, Near Ladi Naka Bus Stand, Vs. Kalyan Badlapur Road, Wayale Nagar, Kalyan (W), Ambarnath-421505, Dist: Dist: Thane. Thane. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ablpg6893P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Mrs. Jothilakshmi Nayak (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/11/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 10.10.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Order To Be Confirmed.

…specifically in the circumstances, when the income has been assessed on the basis of estimation basis in view of the decision of Hon’ble Punjab High Court in the case of CIT vs. Metal Products of India (150 ITR 714 and in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (258 ITR 85) and in the case of CIT vs. Nawab and Bros. (1977) 107 ITR. 681 (All HC). Taking into account, all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the penalty is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, we delete the penalty. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed. Order pronoun…

ITO - WD- 4 (1), Thane vs. Apollo Industrial Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 4(1) V. M/S. Apollo Industrial Corporation Room No. 3 Gala No. 14, Indo Industrial Estate Ashar I.T Park, 6Th Floor Navghar Village, Plot No. 01 A-Wing, Road No. 16Z Vasai (E) - 401210 Wagle Industrial Estate Thane – 400 604 Pan: Aabfa2803Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Neha Paranjpe

…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.” 9. 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…