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

M/S. J.R. Enterprises, Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3042/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 J.R. Enterprises, Vs Dcit, C/O D.B. Jain & Co., Central Circle 5, Shakahar Bldg., New Delhi. 1, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi-110002 (Pan: Adqpg3144E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Department By : Shri James Singson, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri James Singson, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…316 (Del), has held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed when income is 3 Assessment year 2005-06 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 including the one from the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, it is apparent that when the bedrock of instant penalty is estimated disallowance, the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly,…

Ms. Tripta Kaur, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2974/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2012-13 Tripta Kaur, Acit, Central Circle- 14, A-29, Friends Colony-East, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CA
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2012-13 Tripta Kaur, ACIT, Central Circle- 14, A-29, Friends Colony-East, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi. PAN : AAAPK8020A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ved Jain, CA Shri Ashish Chadha, CA : Shri B. S. Rajpurohit, Sr. DR Department by Date of hearing : 05-09-2018 Date of pronouncement : 12-09-2018 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20.03.2014 of the CIT(A)- XXVI, New Delhi…

Shailesh S. Mody, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 25(1), Mumbai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2254/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Deepak Tikeker, Ld. ARFor Respondent: V.K.Chaturvedi, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 23(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

…asivanagar, Bangalore. Therefore, we consider that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in deleting the penalty of Rs. 2,153. Similar analogy has been drawn by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the decision of Harigopal Singh Vs CIT [258 ITR 85]. No contrary judgment has been placed on record. Therefore, the penalty against notional income addition could not be sustained and hence deleted. 6. So far as the penalty on account of addition against alleged bogus purchases is concerned, we find that the undisputed facts are that assessee was in possession of primary purchase documents includi…

Shailesh S. Mody, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 25(1), Mumbai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2251/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Deepak Tikeker, Ld. ARFor Respondent: V.K.Chaturvedi, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 23(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

…asivanagar, Bangalore. Therefore, we consider that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in deleting the penalty of Rs. 2,153. Similar analogy has been drawn by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the decision of Harigopal Singh Vs CIT [258 ITR 85]. No contrary judgment has been placed on record. Therefore, the penalty against notional income addition could not be sustained and hence deleted. 6. So far as the penalty on account of addition against alleged bogus purchases is concerned, we find that the undisputed facts are that assessee was in possession of primary purchase documents includi…

Shailesh S. Mody, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 25(1), Mumbai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2250/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Deepak Tikeker, Ld. ARFor Respondent: V.K.Chaturvedi, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 23(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

…asivanagar, Bangalore. Therefore, we consider that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in deleting the penalty of Rs. 2,153. Similar analogy has been drawn by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the decision of Harigopal Singh Vs CIT [258 ITR 85]. No contrary judgment has been placed on record. Therefore, the penalty against notional income addition could not be sustained and hence deleted. 6. So far as the penalty on account of addition against alleged bogus purchases is concerned, we find that the undisputed facts are that assessee was in possession of primary purchase documents includi…

Sh. Anil Talwar, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 357/CHANDI/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ved JainFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…eliance was placed upon Sangrur Vanaspati mills Ltd. [2008] 171 taxman320 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2008] 303 ITR 53 (Punjab & Haryana) ; CIT v. Aero traders (p.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 31 6 (Delhi); Harigopal Singh vs. CIT[2002] 125taxman242 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2002] 258 ITR 85 (Punjab & Haryana); CIT v. Dhillon Rice Mills [2003]127taxman529 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2002] 256 ITR 447 (Punjab & Haryana); Ajay Gupta v. DCIT ITA 357 to 361/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2005-06 to 2009-10 Page 4 of 6 [2017] 81 taxmann.com 462 (Delhi - trib.)/[2016] 50 ITR(t) 179 (Delhi-Tribunal.); CIT v. Devandas Perumal & co. [1983] 140 ITR 943 (Bombay)/[1982…

Mamta Bakshi, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 1360/DEL/2018[20110-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2018

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

For Appellant: Shri Anil Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT ITA No.1359 & 1360/Del/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mamta Bakshi, Vs. DCIT, L-107, Kirti Nagar, Central Circle-17, New Delhi – 110015. New Delhi. PAN: AALPB6438L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil Chopra, CA Department By : Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25.07.2018 ORDER These two appeals filed by the assessee upholding the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `th…

Mamta Bakshi, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 1359/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

For Appellant: Shri Anil Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT ITA No.1359 & 1360/Del/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mamta Bakshi, Vs. DCIT, L-107, Kirti Nagar, Central Circle-17, New Delhi – 110015. New Delhi. PAN: AALPB6438L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil Chopra, CA Department By : Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25.07.2018 ORDER These two appeals filed by the assessee upholding the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `th…

Ajit Singh Bagga, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 96/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Y. 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44Section 68

…. reported in (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. A similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Harigopal Singh vs. CIT reported in (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Co. Page 5 of 6 ITA 96/Del/2015 A.Y.:2008-09 Sh. Ajit Singh Bagga vs. ACIT reported in 221 ITR 110 (Guj.). It is apparent that the bedrock of instant penalty is the estimate of profit and the same cannot be sustained. The penalty is, thus, ordered to be deleted. 6. In the resul…

Arvind Kumar, Rohtak vs. ITO, Rohtak

In the result appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 81/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Y. 2008-09

Section 271(1)(c)

…. reported in (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. A similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Harigopal Singh vs. CIT reported in (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Co. reported in 221 ITR 110 (Guj.). It is apparent that the bedrock of instant penalty is the estimate of profit and the same cannot be sustained. The penalty is, thus, ordered to be deleted. Page 5 of 6 ITA 81/Del/2015 A.Y.:2008-09 Sh. Arvind Kumar vs. ITO 6. In the result app…

Rajesh Popli, Shimla vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the ITA Nos

ITA 1392/CHANDI/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg& Ms. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Mohan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol, CIT DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…rs. 3. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the addition on account of gross profit was made on estimation basis. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the cases of ‘Hari Gopal Singh Vs. CIT’ (2002) 258 ITR 85 and of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in ‘CIT Vs. Krishi Type Retreading and Rubber Industries’ (2014) 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) to submit that if the additions are made on estimation basis, it cannot be said that the ITA Nos 1387 to 1392/Chd/2016- Shri Rajesh Popli, Shimla 3 assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed his i…

Rajesh Popli, Shimla vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the ITA Nos

ITA 1391/CHANDI/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg& Ms. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Mohan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol, CIT DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…rs. 3. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the addition on account of gross profit was made on estimation basis. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the cases of ‘Hari Gopal Singh Vs. CIT’ (2002) 258 ITR 85 and of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in ‘CIT Vs. Krishi Type Retreading and Rubber Industries’ (2014) 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) to submit that if the additions are made on estimation basis, it cannot be said that the ITA Nos 1387 to 1392/Chd/2016- Shri Rajesh Popli, Shimla 3 assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed his i…

Rajesh Popli, Shimla vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the ITA Nos

ITA 1390/CHANDI/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg& Ms. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Mohan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol, CIT DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…rs. 3. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the addition on account of gross profit was made on estimation basis. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the cases of ‘Hari Gopal Singh Vs. CIT’ (2002) 258 ITR 85 and of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in ‘CIT Vs. Krishi Type Retreading and Rubber Industries’ (2014) 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) to submit that if the additions are made on estimation basis, it cannot be said that the ITA Nos 1387 to 1392/Chd/2016- Shri Rajesh Popli, Shimla 3 assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed his i…

Rajesh Popli, Shimla vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the ITA Nos

ITA 1389/CHANDI/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg& Ms. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Mohan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol, CIT DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…rs. 3. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the addition on account of gross profit was made on estimation basis. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the cases of ‘Hari Gopal Singh Vs. CIT’ (2002) 258 ITR 85 and of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in ‘CIT Vs. Krishi Type Retreading and Rubber Industries’ (2014) 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) to submit that if the additions are made on estimation basis, it cannot be said that the ITA Nos 1387 to 1392/Chd/2016- Shri Rajesh Popli, Shimla 3 assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed his i…

Rajesh Popli, Shimla vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the ITA Nos

ITA 1388/CHANDI/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg& Ms. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Mohan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol, CIT DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…rs. 3. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the addition on account of gross profit was made on estimation basis. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the cases of ‘Hari Gopal Singh Vs. CIT’ (2002) 258 ITR 85 and of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in ‘CIT Vs. Krishi Type Retreading and Rubber Industries’ (2014) 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) to submit that if the additions are made on estimation basis, it cannot be said that the ITA Nos 1387 to 1392/Chd/2016- Shri Rajesh Popli, Shimla 3 assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed his i…

Rajesh Popli, Shimla vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the ITA Nos

ITA 1387/CHANDI/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg& Ms. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Mohan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol, CIT DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…rs. 3. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the addition on account of gross profit was made on estimation basis. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the cases of ‘Hari Gopal Singh Vs. CIT’ (2002) 258 ITR 85 and of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in ‘CIT Vs. Krishi Type Retreading and Rubber Industries’ (2014) 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) to submit that if the additions are made on estimation basis, it cannot be said that the ITA Nos 1387 to 1392/Chd/2016- Shri Rajesh Popli, Shimla 3 assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed his i…

The ITO, Ward-2(3)(5), Surat vs. M/S. Global Syntax, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2936/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C .M. Garg & Shri O. P. Meena

Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…material and not tried to defraud the authorities, the penalty cannot be levied, because the income was assessed on estimate basis. We find that similar case has come up before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT, 258 ITR 85 (P &H), wherein it is held that it was a difference of opinion as regards the estimate of income of the assessee, it could not be said that the assessee has concealed the income so as to attract the provision of Section 271(1)(c). 8. In the instant case, in order to protect the clause (c) of Section 271(1) of the Act, it is necessary that there m…

M/S Vatsa Construction Pvt Ltd., Patna vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 10/PAT/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 09/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 10/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/S Vatsa Constructions Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., Kasturba Path, North S.K. Circle-2, Puri, Patna-800013 Patna (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcv2236R Assessee By : Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kausik Kumar Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2018 Order These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 06.10.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Patna.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kausik Kumar Das, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…t is not a fit case to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, we delete the penalty or both the assessment years under consideration.” 9. On a similar issue, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh Vs CIT 258 ITR 85 held as under: “That there was a difference of opinion as regards the estimate of the income of the assessee. Since the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal adopted different estimates in assessing the income of the assessee, it could not be said that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income so as to attract clause (c) of section 271…

Ctc Plaza International Tradex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4900/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu. & Shri T.S. Kapoor

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…Delhi High Court in CIT vs._Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd.(2010) 322 ITR 316 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 P&H 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). 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 valuation of closing stock, the same cannot be sustained. Overturning the impugn…

ACIT, Muzaffarnagar vs. M/S the Ganga Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Muzaffarnagar

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6174/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2009-10

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

…which held as under. “We have heard counsel for the appellant and have gone through the impugned order. The order passed by the ITAT is based upon two decisions of this Court in CIT vs. Ravail Singh and Co. (2002) 254 ITR 191 and Harigopal Singh vs. 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…