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.

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 85)

ACIT, Jaipur vs. M.R.K.Pipes Ltd., Jaipur

ITA 636/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddawr, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vimlendu Verma , (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 271(1)(c)

…iv Lal Tak vs CIT , 251 ITR 353 (Raj.) 3 DCIT, Circle4, Jaipur vs MRK Pipes Ltd. , Jaipur (ii) CIT vs Krishi Tyre Retrading and Rubber Ind. (2014), 44 taxmann. Com 9 (Raj.) (iii) CIT vs Mahendra Singh Khiedla (2012) 252 ctr 453 (iv) Harigopal Singh vs CIT 258 ITR 85 (P&H) (v) CIT vs Vijay Kumar Jain 38 DTR 345 (Chattisgarh) (vi) CIT vs M.M. Rice Mils,253 ITR 17 (Pun. & Har) (vii) CIT vs Aero Traders (P) Ltd. (2010), 322 ITR 316 (Del.) (vii) CIT vs Shri Narain Jamanalal & Co. (1989) 232 ITR 311, 313 (M.P.) 2.5 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. It is not i…

Munna Biddu Rein, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-26(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4775/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Blemunna Biddu Rein V. Income Tax Officer-26(2)(3) B-801, Udyan Complex Aayakar Bhavan Marol, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 072 Pan: Adhpr3153P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Ketki Rajeshirke & Shri Rashmikant C. Modi Department By : Shri D.G. Pansari

For Appellant: Ms Ketki Rajeshirke &For Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari

Section 133(6)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…

Diamond Creations, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commission of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6295/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 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…

Diamond Creations, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commission of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6294/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 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…

Diamond Creations, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commission of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6293/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 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…

Sonali A Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7211/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7211/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बिधम/ Smt. Sonali A. Shah Ito 21(2)(4) Prop M/S. Mannat Mumbai Vs. Enterprises Flat No.301/302/302, Raj Prashar, 3Rd Floor, 95-F, Indrayan Road, Mumbai- 400054. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadpa7722N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Neelam C. Jadhav Revenue By: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/07/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 12.08.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Order To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Neelam C. JadhavFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 4Section 41(1)

…the method of accounting employed, did not automatically lead to the conclusion that there was failure to return the correct income by means of fraud or gross or willful neglect”. ITA. No.7211/M/2016 A.Y. 2008-09 10. In the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (258 ITR 85) the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that where the assessment is made on estimate basis, no penalty under s. 271(1)(c) can be imposed. The Hon’ble High Court observed that there was a difference of opinion as regards the estimate of income of the assessee. Since the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal adopted different estimates in assess…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Resurgere Mines and Minerals India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1531/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CA and Shri Ashish Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Del.) has held that no penalty v/e 271(1)(c) can be imposed when income is determined on estimate basis. a) Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) b) Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in err Vs. Subhash Trading Co. 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) 6. It is apparent that the bedrock of instant penalty is the estimate of valuation of closing stock, the same cannot be sustained. The penalty is thus, ordered to be deleted. In the case of ACIT vs, Agrawal Enterprises IT Appeal No. 1201(Pune) of 2009 it was h…

Rajesh Popli, Shimla vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1393/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: For Imposition Of Penalty U/S271(L)(C).

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Proxy for Shri Vishal Mohan)For Respondent: Smt. Renu Amitabh, CIT DR

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ee. It is settled law that in case of estimation of income no penalty that too, under Section 271 (l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are leviable. Reliance in this regard is being placed on the following judgments:- i. Harigopal Singh versus CIT, reported as 258 ITR 85 P&H ii. Commissioner of Income Tax versus Krishi Tyre Retreating and Rubber Industries reported as 360 ITR580(Raj) iii. Naresh Chand Aggarwal versus Commissioner of Income Tax 357 ITR 514 (All] iv. Commissioner of Income Tax versus P. Rojes reported as 356 ITR 703(Mad) 6. It is also pertinent to mention that appeal against the said orders has…

Punjab Sind Dairy Products P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 33, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6247/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

For Appellant: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (AR)For Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari (DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…ras in a recent judgement has held in the case of CIT Vs. E. V. Rajan (reported at 151 ITR 189) that penalty provisions under section 271(1)(c) are applicable even when assessment is made on basis of an estimate. v) Finally the case of Hari Gopai Singh Vs CIT 258 ITR 85 (P&H) is relating to an assessee engaged in the business of sale of sweets, who did not maintain any books of accounts and the Assessing Officer had estimated his income. This case is clearly different from the present case, where the assessee has maintained books of accounts, but failed to substantiate the claim of sale of milk. Further, in the p…

Punjab Sind Dairy Products P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 33, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6246/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

For Appellant: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (AR)For Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari (DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…ras in a recent judgement has held in the case of CIT Vs. E. V. Rajan (reported at 151 ITR 189) that penalty provisions under section 271(1)(c) are applicable even when assessment is made on basis of an estimate. v) Finally the case of Hari Gopai Singh Vs CIT 258 ITR 85 (P&H) is relating to an assessee engaged in the business of sale of sweets, who did not maintain any books of accounts and the Assessing Officer had estimated his income. This case is clearly different from the present case, where the assessee has maintained books of accounts, but failed to substantiate the claim of sale of milk. Further, in the p…

M/S Shiv Kumar Baigara and Company, Udhampur vs. Income Tax Officer Udhampur, Udhampur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 357/ASR/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Mar 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No.357/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2001-02

For Appellant: Sh. P.N.Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ssee’s plea. Under the circumstances, therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee had concealed, or otherwise furnished inaccurate, particulars of its’ income. The decisions by the jurisdictional High Court, as in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and CIT vs. Dhillon Rice Mills [2002] 256 ITR 447 (P&H), would apply in the facts and circumstances of the case. I, accordingly direct the deletion of the impugned penalty. 4. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on March 29, 2019 (Sanjay Arora) Accountant Member Date: 29.03.2019 /PK/ Ps. Cop…

Ashok Nanchahal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 62(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 5486/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri T.R. Talwar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…271(1)(c) are not attracted to the cases where the income of assessee is assessed on estimate basis and additions are made therein on that basis. I rely upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the cases of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and CIT 7 ITA.No.5486/Del./2018 Shri Ashok Nanchahal, New Delhi. vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., (2008) 303 ITR 53 (P&H). No definite finding of fact have been given by assessing officer that assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income in this regard. Therefore, by mere agreeing to additi…

Rajesh Kumar, Karnal vs. ITO, Ward- 4, Karnal

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2049/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…he assessee. It is, therefore, not a case of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. He has relied upon following decisions : (i) CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., (2008) 303 ITR 53 (P&H) (ii) Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) (iii) Order of ITAT, SMC Bench, Dated 16.06.2016 in the case of Zamindara Timber Traders, Karnal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karnal in ITA.No.2964/D/2014. 6. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 4 ITA.Nos.1765 & 2049/Del./2018 Shri Rajesh Kumar, Karnal. 7. I have considered the rival submissions. It is well sett…

Rajesh Kumar Prop., Karnal vs. ITO, Ward- 4, Karnal

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1765/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…he assessee. It is, therefore, not a case of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. He has relied upon following decisions : (i) CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., (2008) 303 ITR 53 (P&H) (ii) Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) (iii) Order of ITAT, SMC Bench, Dated 16.06.2016 in the case of Zamindara Timber Traders, Karnal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karnal in ITA.No.2964/D/2014. 6. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 4 ITA.Nos.1765 & 2049/Del./2018 Shri Rajesh Kumar, Karnal. 7. I have considered the rival submissions. It is well sett…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda vs. Sh. Daljit Singh, Bathinda

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 461/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N.S.Saini & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.461(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year:2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (Ld. DR)For Respondent: None

Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…A) deleted the penalty, while following the propositions laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dhillon Rice Mills [2002] 256 ITR 447 (P&H), CIT vs. Metal Products of India [1984] 150 ITR 714 (P&H) and Harigopal Singh vs. ITO [2002] 258 ITR 85 (P&H) whereby, the jurisdictional High Court has held that penalty would not be exigible merely because an addition is made on estimate basis. We do not find any contrary material/substance either on record or in the submissions of the Ld. DR to controvert the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order, hence in our considered view the order…

M/S Silver and Art Palace, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

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

ITA 236/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 158BSection 246ASection 250Section 271A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 236/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 cuke M/s Silver & Art Palace, The DCIT, Vs. 313-A, Old Amer Road, Central Circle-4, Jaipur-302002. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AALFS 5749 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh…

Income Tax Officer, Bhiwadi vs. Shri Pratap Singh Tanwar, Jaipur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1027/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…r trading addition made is only on estimate. On such estimated trading addition, penalty is not leviable as held in the following cases:- • CIT Vs. Mahendra Singh Khedla 71 DTR 189 (Raj.) • Shiv Lal Tak Vs. CIT 251 ITR 373 (Raj.) • Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT 258 ITR 85 (P&H) • CIT Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain 38 DTR 345 (Chattisgarh) • CIT Vs. Suresh Kumar Bansal 254 ITR 130 (P&H) (ii) Unexplained cash credit of Rs.85,39,700/-:- (a) At the outset, it is to submit that after the order of Tribunal, the addition on account on unexplained cash credit has been reduced to Rs.65,24,700/-. Therefore, no penalty on addition…

Vivek Jairath, Delhi vs. ACIT, Ghaziabad

In the result ITA 4103/Del/2015 stands allowed

ITA 4104/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Ìta No. 4104/Del/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Vivek Jairath, Vs Dcit, C/O Matta & Associates, Circle-2, 877, Aggarwal Cyber Plaza-Ii, Ghaziabad. Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi-110034 (Pan: Adnpj0779P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By: Shri Ajay Kumar Matta, Ca Assessee By: Shri B.S. Anant, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 4.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2018

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Anant, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Matta, CA

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…s. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 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 Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company, 221 ITR 110 (Guj). Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that no penalty is imposable on the facts of the present case. We set aside the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty. 7.1 In the result ITA 4103/Del/2015…

Vivek Jairath, Delhi vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result ITA 4103/Del/2015 stands allowed

ITA 4103/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Ìta No. 4104/Del/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Vivek Jairath, Vs Dcit, C/O Matta & Associates, Circle-2, 877, Aggarwal Cyber Plaza-Ii, Ghaziabad. Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi-110034 (Pan: Adnpj0779P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By: Shri Ajay Kumar Matta, Ca Assessee By: Shri B.S. Anant, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 4.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2018

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Anant, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Matta, CA

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…s. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 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 Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company, 221 ITR 110 (Guj). Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that no penalty is imposable on the facts of the present case. We set aside the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty. 7.1 In the result ITA 4103/Del/2015…

Asit P Desai, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2)(1), Thane

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

ITA 3599/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarshri Asit P. Desai Income Tax Officer-25(2)(1) 506-B Wing Room No. 703, C-12 225 Nariman Road Vs. 7Th Floor, Bandra-Kurla, Vile Parle (E) Complex, Mumbai 400051 Mumbai 400057 Pan – Aabpd2828E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Saboo &For Respondent: Ms. Harkamal Sohi

Section 271(1)(c)

…Shri Asit P. Desai arguments, the learned A.R. relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Aero Traders (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 316 and the decision of the Hon'ble P&H High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has confirmed the decision of the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal has held that in the case of addition based upon guess work cannot be subject matter of concealment of income for the imposition of penalty. The Hon'ble P&H High Court has held that where the income of the assessee is assessed on estimation basis penalty…

Harigopal Singh v. CIT

What is Harigopal Singh v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Harigopal Singh v. CIT

ACIT, Jaipur vs. M.R.K.Pipes Ltd., Jaipur

Munna Biddu Rein, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-26(2)(3), Mumbai

Diamond Creations, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commission of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(2), Mumbai

Diamond Creations, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commission of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(2), Mumbai

Diamond Creations, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commission of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(2), Mumbai

Sonali A Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(2)(4), Mumbai

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Resurgere Mines and Minerals India Ltd., Mumbai

Rajesh Popli, Shimla vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

Punjab Sind Dairy Products P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 33, Mumbai

Punjab Sind Dairy Products P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 33, Mumbai

M/S Shiv Kumar Baigara and Company, Udhampur vs. Income Tax Officer Udhampur, Udhampur

Ashok Nanchahal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 62(1), New Delhi

Rajesh Kumar, Karnal vs. ITO, Ward- 4, Karnal

Rajesh Kumar Prop., Karnal vs. ITO, Ward- 4, Karnal

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda vs. Sh. Daljit Singh, Bathinda

M/S Silver and Art Palace, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

Income Tax Officer, Bhiwadi vs. Shri Pratap Singh Tanwar, Jaipur

Vivek Jairath, Delhi vs. ACIT, Ghaziabad

Vivek Jairath, Delhi vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

Asit P Desai, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2)(1), Thane