K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT

265 ITR 562Supreme Court of India2004#362 most cited

What is K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT authority for?

When the addition made in the assessment order, on the basis of which a penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) is levied, is subsequently deleted, the penalty has no basis and must be cancelled.

241

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

K.C. Builders v. ACIT · 265 ITR 562 · section 271(1)(c) penalty · concealment of income · deletion of quantum addition · penalty not sustainable · penalty cancellation · basis for penalty

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 43ASection 80IBSection 80IB(10)Section 11
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1)(c)penalty u/s 271(1)(c)concealment of incomesection 271levy of penaltyincriminating materialsection 271(1)section 153section 153asection 15section 27section 143

Judgments citing K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT

Mr. Budnar Jayakar Shetty, Udupi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 93/BANG/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jun 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessmentyear: 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. PriyadrshiniBasaganni, D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 57Section 69A

…ITA No.93/Bang/2022 Mr. BudnarJayakar Shetty, Udupi IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AssessmentYear: 2016-17 Mr. Budnar Jayakar Shetty Badagabettu Credit Co-operative Society Deputy Commissioner of Mission Compound Vs. Income-tax Udupi 576 101 Central Circle-2 Mangaluru PAN NO : AGLPS4071Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Sheetal, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. PriyadrshiniBasaganni, D.R. Date of Hearing : 02.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 06.06.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT…

Tanya Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-25(1), New Delhi

ITA 3370/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R.Kumar & Sh.Anubhav Sharmatanya Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, 312, Thapar Chamber, Ring Circle 25(1), Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaact3639B (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALDELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE DR. B.R.R.KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH.ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Tanya Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 312, Thapar Chamber, Ring Circle 25(1), Road, New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAACT3639B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by None Revenue by Ms. Yagya Saini Kakkar, CIT- DR Date of hearing: 05.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 19.05.2022 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The assessee has filed this appeal against the order dated 29.03.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi confirming the penalty levied…

DCIT Non Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. Sohanraj Uttamchand, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 350/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.349/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dy. Commissioner Of- V. Shri Sohanraj Praveenkumar, Income Tax, 17/38, Arcot Street, Non-Corporate Circle-1(1), T. Nagar, Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Aajpp 3671 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.Yeswanthkumar, CAFor Respondent: Mr.G. Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…at the ITAT has deleted the additions made by the AO in quantum appeal proceedings has deleted the penalty levied by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, by following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of KC builders v. ACIT reported in [2004] 265 ITR 562 (SC). The relevant findings of the Ld.CIT(A) are as under: 4.1 The appellant went on appeal against the assessment made by the Assessing Officer before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) in its order dated 31.05.2017 upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer. On further appeal by the appellant, the Chennai C Bench of the ITAT in its order in 1786/…

DCIT Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai vs. Sohanraj Praveen Kumar, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 349/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.349/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dy. Commissioner Of- V. Shri Sohanraj Praveenkumar, Income Tax, 17/38, Arcot Street, Non-Corporate Circle-1(1), T. Nagar, Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Aajpp 3671 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.Yeswanthkumar, CAFor Respondent: Mr.G. Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…at the ITAT has deleted the additions made by the AO in quantum appeal proceedings has deleted the penalty levied by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, by following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of KC builders v. ACIT reported in [2004] 265 ITR 562 (SC). The relevant findings of the Ld.CIT(A) are as under: 4.1 The appellant went on appeal against the assessment made by the Assessing Officer before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) in its order dated 31.05.2017 upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer. On further appeal by the appellant, the Chennai C Bench of the ITAT in its order in 1786/…

Late Smt. Harminder Kaur L/H Sh. Aps Matharoo, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 36(4), New Delhi

ITA 301/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.301 /Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2011-12)

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI) (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SH. G.S.PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.301 /Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Late Smt. Harminder kaur Vs. ITO, L/H Sh. APS Matharoo Ward-36(4), A-1/118, Safdarjung Enclave New Delhi New Delhi PAN : ANOPK6529P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Revenue by Ms. Gunjan Jain, CA Assessee by Sh. Ratan Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 22.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 31.03.2022 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order…

Gautam Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 12, New Delhi

ITA 3907/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.3906 /Del/2018 (Assessment Year : 2003-04) Gautam Kumar Vs. Acit B-101/102 Cosmopolitan Central Circle-12 Society New Delhi 110002 Plot No. 33, Sec 10 Dwarka, New Delhi 110075 Pan : Aigpk0403M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI) (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SH. G.S.PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3906 /Del/2018 (Assessment Year : 2003-04) Gautam Kumar Vs. ACIT B-101/102 Cosmopolitan Central Circle-12 Society New Delhi 110002 Plot No. 33, Sec 10 Dwarka, New Delhi 110075 PAN : AIGPK0403M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Revenue by Sh. Rajnish Aggarwal, CA Assessee by Sh. Ratan Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 22.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 31 .03.2022 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: Both these appeals, being based on same…

Gautam Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 12, New Delhi

ITA 3906/DEL/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.3906 /Del/2018 (Assessment Year : 2003-04) Gautam Kumar Vs. Acit B-101/102 Cosmopolitan Central Circle-12 Society New Delhi 110002 Plot No. 33, Sec 10 Dwarka, New Delhi 110075 Pan : Aigpk0403M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI) (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SH. G.S.PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3906 /Del/2018 (Assessment Year : 2003-04) Gautam Kumar Vs. ACIT B-101/102 Cosmopolitan Central Circle-12 Society New Delhi 110002 Plot No. 33, Sec 10 Dwarka, New Delhi 110075 PAN : AIGPK0403M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Revenue by Sh. Rajnish Aggarwal, CA Assessee by Sh. Ratan Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 22.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 31 .03.2022 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: Both these appeals, being based on same…

DCIT, Hisar vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2034/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: The Appeal Is Heard & Disposed Off.”

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE, SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dy. Commissioner of M/s Dakshin Haryana Bijli Income Tax, Vitran Nigam Ltd., Hisar Circle, Hisar. Vidyut Nagar, Delhi Road, Vs. Hisar. PAN-AABCD 0033C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. S. Krishnan, Adv. and Sh. V. Rajakumar, Adv. Respondent by Ms. Yagyasaini Kakkar, CIT- DR ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM: (A) This appeal by Revenue is filed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hisar […

Asstt. CIT, CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. National Standard India Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 695/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. AR)
Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE PRAMOD KUMAR, VP AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 695/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) ACIT, CC-7(3) बिधम/ M/s. National Standard India Room No.655, Aaykar Ltd. Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, 412, Vardhan Chambers, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACN9808L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: None Revenue by: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. AR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 07/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 18/02/20…

DCIT, Central Circle- 29, New Delhi vs. Omaxe Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 931/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ate Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 16.06.2017 (supra) deleted the additions. In these circumstances, the penalty levied by the AO is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case cited as K.C. Builders & Anr vs. ACIT – 265 ITR 562 (SC) because “when the addition made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied have been deleted there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and in such case, no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled.” So, in view of the matter, the impugned order passed by th…

Sns Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-22(1), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 7429/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 27ISection 68

…ITA No.- 7429/Del/2018 SNS Projects Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘G’: NEW DELHI) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:- 7429/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) SNS Projects Pvt. Ltd., ITO, Delhi. Vs. Ward 22(1), New Delhi. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN No: AALCS6704M Assessee By : Shri C.S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR Per Anadee Nath Misshra, AM (A) This appeal by Assessee is filed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [“Ld.…

Vikas Strips Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-26(2), New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4483/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit & Shri Anadee Nath Misshravikas Strips Ltd., Acit, Delhi. Vs. Circle – 26(2), New Delhi. Pan No: Aabcv7134J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Avikal Manu, Sr. Dr Order Per Anadee Nath Misshra, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Avikal Manu, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ITA No.-4483/Del/2019 Vikas Strips Ltd., Delhi. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI) (Through Video Conference) BEFORE SHRI AMIT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Vikas Strips Ltd., ACIT, Delhi. Vs. Circle – 26(2), New Delhi. PAN No: AABCV7134J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Avikal Manu, Sr. DR ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM (A) This appeal by Assessee is filed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, New Delhi, [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 25.11.2016 for Assessment Ye…

Sunil Kumar, Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 20(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 6378/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 271Section 40

…17. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned appellate order dated 08.11.2018 of the Ld. CIT(A); and allow assessee’s appeal. For coming to this decision, we take strength from the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. C. Builders Vs. ACIT [2004] 135 Taxmann 461 (SC) in which Hon’ble Supreme Court held, that where the additions made in the Assessment Order, on the basis of which penalty for concealment was levied, are deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment, and, therefore, in such a case no such penalty can survive and the same is liable to be cancelled. (E) I…

Anika International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi

ITA 3347/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ate Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 16.06.2017 (supra) deleted the additions. In these circumstances, the penalty levied by the AO is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case cited as K.C. Builders & Anr vs. ACIT – 265 ITR 562 (SC) because “when the addition made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied have been deleted there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and in such case, no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled.” So, in view of the matter, the penalty order passed by the…

ACIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Anurag Dalmia, New Delhi

ITA 3006/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…ate Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 15.02.2018 (supra) deleted the additions. In these circumstances, the penalty levied by the AO is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case cited as K.C. Builders & Anr vs. ACIT – 265 ITR 562 (SC) because “when the addition made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied 4 ITA No.3005/Del./2018 ITA No.3006/Del./2018 have been deleted there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and in such case, no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled.” So, in vie…

ACIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Anurag Dalmia, New Delhi

ITA 3005/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…ate Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 15.02.2018 (supra) deleted the additions. In these circumstances, the penalty levied by the AO is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case cited as K.C. Builders & Anr vs. ACIT – 265 ITR 562 (SC) because “when the addition made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied 4 ITA No.3005/Del./2018 ITA No.3006/Del./2018 have been deleted there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and in such case, no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled.” So, in vie…

ACIT, Circle-52(1), New Delhi vs. Sushmita Gupta, New Delhi

ITA 6478/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…ate Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 21.12.2018 (supra) deleted the additions. In these circumstances, the penalty levied by the AO is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case cited as K.C. Builders & Anr vs. ACIT – 265 ITR 562 (SC) because “when the addition made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied have been deleted there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and in such case, no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled.” So, in view of the matter, finding no illegality or perver…

Sai Samarth Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 1, Thane

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

ITA 3718/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3718/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3720/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3721/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ M/S. Sai Samarth Enterprises Dcit-Central Circle-1, 107, Patel Building, Parel, Thane. Vs. Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abufs9008B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Suchek Anchaliya Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/03/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, (Jm): The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 29.03.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 132oSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ove the element of mensrea, the Finance Act, 1964 deleted the word "deliberately" that preceded the words "concealed the particulars of his income" in Section 271(1)(c). Nonetheless, even post the amendment, the Apex Court in KC. Builders v. Asstt. CIT [2004] 265 ITR 562/135 Taxman 461 held that: "The word 'concealment' inherently carried with it the element of mens rea. Therefore, the mere fact that some figure or some particulars have been disclosed by itself, even if takes out the case from the purview of non- disclosure, cannot by itself take out the case from the purview of furnishing inaccurate particulars.…

M/S Axis Education Technologies (P) Ltd., Ludhiana vs. CIT(A)-3, Ludhiana

In the result, both these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1033/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 May 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…O. and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) deserve to be deleted. Support is drawn from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex 3 ITA 1032 & 1033/Chd/2019 M/s Abacus Edutech (P) Ltd. Vs CIT(A) & 1 Anr. Court in the case of K.C. Builders and Anr. Vs ACIT reported in (2004) 265 ITR 562 wherein on a similar issue the Court was pleased to hold: “Where the additions made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied, are deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying penalty for concealment and, therefore, in such a case no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled. Ordin…

M/S Abacus Edutech Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. CIT(A)-3, Luhiana

In the result, both these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1032/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 May 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…O. and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) deserve to be deleted. Support is drawn from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex 3 ITA 1032 & 1033/Chd/2019 M/s Abacus Edutech (P) Ltd. Vs CIT(A) & 1 Anr. Court in the case of K.C. Builders and Anr. Vs ACIT reported in (2004) 265 ITR 562 wherein on a similar issue the Court was pleased to hold: “Where the additions made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied, are deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying penalty for concealment and, therefore, in such a case no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled. Ordin…