Naresh Chand Agarwal v. CIT

357 ITR 514High Court2013#7893 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c) Explanation 1Section 44AD

Judgments citing Naresh Chand Agarwal v. CIT

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

ITA 870/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 298

…ground that the additions on account of bogus purchases were on estimated basis. 2.3.3. A number of other High Courts / Tribunal have also held that no penalty can be levied where an addition is made on estimate basis- (a) Naresh Chand Agarwal v. CIT, (2013) 357 ITR 514 (All) Tisya Jewels 11 The High Court observed as follows: "In the instant case, nothing was concealed by the assessee. It was the A.O. who has rejected the books of account in the second round and applied the 8% net profit rate prescribed under Section 44 AD. In the instant case, the turnover is more than 40 lacs, so Section 44AD is not applicab…

INCOME TAX OFFICIER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

ITA 869/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 298

…ground that the additions on account of bogus purchases were on estimated basis. 2.3.3. A number of other High Courts / Tribunal have also held that no penalty can be levied where an addition is made on estimate basis- (a) Naresh Chand Agarwal v. CIT, (2013) 357 ITR 514 (All) Tisya Jewels 11 The High Court observed as follows: "In the instant case, nothing was concealed by the assessee. It was the A.O. who has rejected the books of account in the second round and applied the 8% net profit rate prescribed under Section 44 AD. In the instant case, the turnover is more than 40 lacs, so Section 44AD is not applicab…

M/S NAIYER ASSOCIATES,SITAPUR vs. INOCME TAX OFFICER-3(2), LUCKNOW

ITA 549/LKW/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

Section 144Section 184Section 184(5)Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…and courts this view that once books of account are rejected and income is estimated by applying N.P. rate, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is not imposable. 7. Under these circumstances, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Naresh Chand Agarwal vs. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 514 (All) has held as under: "Penalty proceedings—Books rejected—Profit estimated—No evidence of concealment— Penalty initiated—Leviability—Original return was filed declaring income—After notice, assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on enhanced income by rejecting books of accounts u/s 145—CIT(A) partially allowed assessee's appeal— Tribunal remanded…

M/S NAIYER ASSOCIATES,SITAPUR vs. INOCME TAX OFFICER-3(2), LUCKNOW

ITA 548/LKW/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

Section 144Section 184Section 184(5)Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…and courts this view that once books of account are rejected and income is estimated by applying N.P. rate, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is not imposable. 7. Under these circumstances, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Naresh Chand Agarwal vs. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 514 (All) has held as under: "Penalty proceedings—Books rejected—Profit estimated—No evidence of concealment— Penalty initiated—Leviability—Original return was filed declaring income—After notice, assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on enhanced income by rejecting books of accounts u/s 145—CIT(A) partially allowed assessee's appeal— Tribunal remanded…

ITO-28(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHARWANSINGHATAR SINGH CHATARSINGH CHUNDAWAT, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5779/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.5779/Mum./2019 (Assessment Year : 2010–11) Income Tax Officer ……………. Appellant Ward–28(3)(2), Mumbai v/s Smt. Sheeja Varghese 74, Nandanvan CHS Ltd. Sector–17, Nerul (East) ……………. Respondent Navi Mumbai 400 706 PAN – ADGPV8111Q Revenue by : Shri Vijay Kumar Menon Assessee by : None Date of Hearing – 01.06.2021 Date of Order – 27.07.2021 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M. The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned order dated 21s…

ITO 28 (3)(5), MUMBAI vs. SHRI. YUSUF AHMED SOLANKI (PROPRIETOR OF ,/S SAYCO ENERPRISES), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 6837/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.6837/Mum./2019 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) Income Tax Officer ……………. Appellant Ward–28(3)(5), Mumbai v/s Shri Yusuf Ahmed Solanki Proprietor of M/s. Sayco Enterprises 54, Sector–1A, Timber Market ……………. Respondent Koperkhairne, Navi Mumbai 400 705 PAN – AERPS1196J Revenue by : Shri T.S. Khalsa Assessee by : None Date of Hearing – 18.05.2021 Date of Order – 08.07.2021 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M. The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue…

ACIT 28 (2), MUMBAI vs. M/S REDSTAR, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6461/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Ms. Radha HalbeFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 44Section 44ASection 69C

…re the first appellate authority. 3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the penalty so imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by following the decisions of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Naresh Chand Agarwal v/s CIT, 357 ITR 514 (All.). The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court deleting the penalty are as follows:– “6. I have considered the facts of the case and the appellant’s submissions. 6.1 The effective ground of the appeal is against levy of penalty of Rs. 2,22,560/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO had added the 12.5% of the bogus purchases at…

ITO 28(2)(2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. M/S MAURYA TILES, NAVI MUMBAI

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

ITA 4502/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4502/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito-28(2)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Maurya Tiles 3Rd Floor, R. No.311 Tower Shop No. 4 & 5 Plot No.575- Vs. No.5 Vashi Rly Station A Vashi Belapur Road Complex Vashi Navi Shirvane Nerul Navi Mumbai-400703. Mumbai-400706. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfm6694H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Sanjay Sethi (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/01/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.04.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -26, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "(1) "Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case An In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Correct In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs. 43,922/- Levied U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act As The Penalty Was Levied On Quantum Additions Made On Account Of Bogus

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sethi (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 27l

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4502/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) ITO-28(2)(2) बिधम/ M/s. Maurya Tiles 3rd Floor, R. No.311 Tower Shop No. 4 & 5 Plot No.575- Vs. No.5 Vashi Rly Station A Vashi Belapur Road Complex Vashi Navi Shirvane Nerul Navi Mumbai-400703. Mumbai-400706. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAHFM6694H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue by: Shri Sanjay Sethi (DR) Assessee by: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 28/01/2021 घोषणा की तारीख…

ITO 28(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. VIPUL P SHAH, MUMBAI

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

ITA 4437/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4437/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito-28(3)(4) बिधम/ Shri Vipul P. Shah Room No.320, 3Rd Floor, 6Th Shop No. A-1, Industrial Vs. Tower, Vashi Railway House, Sector-21, Turbhe Station Complex Vashi, Navi Navi Mumbai-400705. Mumbai-4000703. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacps5220L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/02/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.04.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -26, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - " (1) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Correct In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.62,802/- Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act As The Penalty Was Levied On Quantum Additions Made On Account Of Bogus Purchases, A.Y.2010-11 Without Appreciating That The Onus Was On The Assessee To Establish The Genuineness Of Such Purchases By Producing Such Parties Before The Assessing Officer & The Assessee Failed To Discharge His Onus"?

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4437/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) ITO-28(3)(4) बिधम/ Shri Vipul P. Shah Room No.320, 3rd Floor, 6th Shop No. A-1, Industrial Vs. Tower, Vashi Railway House, Sector-21, Turbhe Station Complex Vashi, Navi Navi Mumbai-400705. Mumbai-4000703. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACPS5220L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue by: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (DR) Assessee by: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 17/12/2020 घोषणा की तारीख…

ITO 28(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SADHANA JAISINGH PATEL, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3526/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer-28(3)(1), Sadhana Jaisingh Patel, Room No. 316, 3Rd Floor, C/6/6/2/1, Neel Kamal, 6Th Tower, Vashi Railway Station Sector – 3, Cbd Belapur, Complex, Vashi, Vs. Navi Mumbai Navi Mumbai - 400703 Pan: Aexpp4021M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Jeetendra Kumar (DR)
Section 143Section 271

…10-11 and 2011-12 6. As pointed out by the Ld. counsel for the assessee, the Ld. CIT (A) has deleted the penalty levied u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act, by following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Nareshchand Agarwal vs. CIT 357 ITR 514 (Allahabad), wherein the Hon’ble Court has held that where the addition is made on estimate basis, penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) cannot be imposed. We further notice that apart from the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, the Ld. CIT (A) has relied upon the various decisions of the coordinate Benches of the Tribunal. Since, the findings of th…

ITO 27(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.SONAL PLASTICS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5194/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vinod Kumar, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ng of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). We find that the Ld. CIT(A) by following the decision on the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Naresh Chand Agarwal v. CIT, 357 ITR 514 (All) and the order of the Tribunal in DCIT v. M/s Manohar Manak Alloys P. Ltd. (ITA No. 5586/Mum/2015), M/s Yashraj Films P. Ltd. v. ACIT (ITA No. 7519/Mum/2013), DCIT v. M/s Rishabh Impex Gulabdas & Co. (ITA No. 93/Mum/2011), Shruti Fastners Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 49 CCH 183 (Del-Trib.) and Rakesh Kumar M. Gupta v. ITO (2017) 49 CCH 66 (Mum- Trib.…

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)

…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 been admitted by the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh and copy of the order of admission of the appeal and formulation of questions of law will be placed on record subsequently and as…

SHRI VISHNU KUMAR BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 694/JPR/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: None (Written submissions)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…639 (All) • Price Water House Coopers pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC) • CIT vs. Amit Jain 351 ITR 74 (Delhi) • CIT vs. Amtek Auto Ltd. 352 ITR 394 (P &H) 3 Vishnu Kumar Bhargava vs. ITO • CIT vs. P. rojes 356 ITR 703 (Mad) • Naresh Chandra Agrawal vs. CIT 357 ITR 514 (All) • CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Karn) • CIT vs. Krishi Tyer Retreading & Rubber Ind. 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) • CIT vs. Whiteline chemicals 360 ITR 385 (Guj.) • CIT vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. 362 ITR 160 (Kar) • CIT vs. Cholamandalam Inv. & Fin. Co. Ltd. 364 ITR 680 (Mad) • CIT vs. Shyam RajSingh 367 ITR 74 (…

M/S. SHRUTI FASTENERS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 5374/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…of three items at Rs.37.96 per mtr instead of Rs.59.48 per mtr estimated by the AO. 5.6 The Ld. Counsel of the assessee has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in the case of Naresh Chand Agarwal vs. CIT 357 ITR 514, in which their Lordship after referring to the Supreme Court judgment of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158, and following the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Arjun Prasad Ajit Kumar 214 CTR 355 (Allahabad H.C.) has observed that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed with reference to the addition made on estimation basis.…

Naresh Chand Agarwal v. CIT (357 ITR 514) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax