How many judgments cite National Textiles v. CIT?

134 judgments on BharatTax cite National Textiles v. CIT (249 ITR 125), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does National Textiles v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 133(6), Section 142(1), Section 143(1).

National Textiles v. CIT

249 ITR 125High Court2001#763 most cited

What is National Textiles v. CIT authority for?

The levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) requires material evidence that the assessed amount does not represent the assessee's income and proof of conscious concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. A penalty cannot be sustained merely because income is assessed on an estimation basis without positive evidence of concealment.

134

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

National Textiles v. CIT · penalty under section 271(1)(c) · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · income assessed on estimation · levy of penalty · animus · 249 ITR 125 · Gujarat High Court

Also reported as

164 CTR 2009

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of income furnishing inaccurate particulars concealment of income penalty u/s 271(1)(c)section 274 levy of penalty section 271(1)commissioner (appeals)section 44 section 271 section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing National Textiles v. CIT

Midland Animal Nutrition P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3203/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3203/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Midland Animal Nutrition Ito Ward-2(1)(2), Mumbai- Pvt. Ltd. 6W, Merchant 400020. Vs. Chambers, 6Th Floor, No.41, New Marine Lines, Opp, Patkar Hall, Mumbai- 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2964Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri D Dharmesh Shah & Dhaval Shah Revenue By: Shri Suman Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 11.05.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2010-11 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Has Been Ordered To Be Upheld.

For Appellant: Shri D Dharmesh Shah & DhavalFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (DR)

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 27l

…on’ble ITAT in the case of Balaji Construction (ITA. No.217/M/2015) dated dated 15.02.2017 for the A.Y.2009-10 and decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Upendra V. Mithani (ITA. No. 1860 of 2009) dated 05.08.2009 & National Textiles Vs. CIT 249 ITR 125. However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has refuted the said contention. On appraisal of the order passed by the CIT(A) on record, we noticed that the CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty levied by the AO on account of non-proving the claim of the purchase of Rs.10,50,000/- by the assessee. No doubt, the confirmation has…

Crystal Constructions, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 21(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-

ITA 4918/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Crystal Construction, The Acit-21(1), 5Th Floor, Geetnajali Arcade, Pratyakshar Bhavan, Above Shamarao Vitthal Bank, Bandra Kurla Complex, Nehru Road, Ville Parle (E), Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-400057 Pan: Aaefc0268N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah/Dhaval Shah Revenue By : Shri Rajat Mittal (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 04/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/09/2018

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal (DR)

Section 143Section 271Section 274

…on record by the assessee. Thus, the 8 Assessment Year: 2010-11 peculiar facts of this case do not permit the AO to levy penalty on the assessee. We also find support from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of National Textiles vs. CIT 249 ITR 125 (Guj), wherein after analyzing fundamental aspects of jurisprudence with respect to levy of penalty as envisaged in section 271 (1)(c), it was observed as under:- “The provisions of s. 68 permitting the AO to treat unexplained cash credit as income are enabling provisions for making certain additions, where there is failure by the assessee to giv…

Global Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 9(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5099/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. G. S. Pannu, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5099/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri AnujKisnadwallaFor Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar Rai

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…hadow of doubt. Under these circumstances, we doubt whether penalty can be levied as per law contained in the Income Tax Act. In this regard, we take guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of National Textiles Corporation Vrs. CIT 249 ITR 125 11 I.T.A. No. 5099/Mum/2016 (Guj.), wherein it was held that if the assessee gives an explanation which remains ‘unproved’ , but is not ‘disproved’, no penalty is imposable. Identical view was taken by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vrs. Upendra Vrs. Mithani (ITA no. 180/Mum/2009). Therefore, overall facts of the case do not justi…

Ramesh Bhogilal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ACIT 20(2), Mumbai

ITA 227/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 227/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri MayurFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya

Section 1Section 271(1)(c)

…hadow of doubt. Under these circumstances, we doubt whether penalty can be levied as per law contained in the Income Tax Act. In this regard, we take guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of National Textiles Corporation Vrs. CIT 249 ITR 125 (Guj.), wherein it was held that if the assessee gives an explanation which remains ‘unproved’ , but is not ‘disproved’, no penalty is imposable. Identical view was taken by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vrs. Upendra Vrs. Mithani (ITA no. 180/Mum/2009). Therefore, 10 I.T.A. No. 227/Mum/2016 Ramesh Bhogilal Parikh overall facts of…

Saras Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd., Valsad vs. The Dy.CIT, Valsad Circle, Valsad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 689/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.689/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2007-08 Saras Plywood Products Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Plot No.744, New G.I.D.C, Valsad Circle, Valsad. Gundlav, Valsad. Pan: Aahcs 8945G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…refore, the issue involved is most debatable issue on which two views are possible and revenue authorities have expressed two view of same set of addition. The learned counsel for the assessee also placed reliance in the case of National Textile v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 125 (Guj) and CIT v. Jalaram Oil Mills [2002] 253 ITR 192 (Guj). Therefore, it has been claimed that the assessee has not furnished any inaccurate particulars of income or concealed the income. Besides, the learned counsel for the assessee has pointed out that the additions on which penalty has been levied has been admitted by the Hon'ble High Court…

Shivkumar Devidutt Saraf HUF, Pune vs. ITO WD 14(2)2, Mumbai

ITA 2063/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Am Shivkumar Devidutt Saraf, Huf Ito, Ward-14(2)(2), बिधम/ 50, Chhotalal Bhavan, 418, 3Rd Floor, Earnest House, Kalbadevi Road, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 021. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaahs9816G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: S/Shri. V.G Ginde and ShriramFor Respondent: Shri. V. Justin

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…araf HUF Vs. ITO-14(2)(2). penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) could justifiably be imposed, placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements :- (i) CIT Vs. Kokila Ben A. Shah (Tax Appeal No. 496/2010, dated 22.06.2011) (Guj) (ii) National Textiles Vs. CIT (249 ITR 125) (iii) Shri Chandrakant J. Shah Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 18(2)(4), Mumbai (ITA No. 1236/ Mum/ 2006, dated 16.03.2012) (iv) Addl. CIT Vs. Rawalpindi Flour Mills (125 ITR 243) (v) CIT Vs. Bhimji Bhanjee & Co. (146 ITR 145) (vi) CIT Vs. Balbir Singh (214 CTR 147)(P&H) (vii) Satish Babladi Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-36 (ITA No. 345 and 346/Mum/2015)…

Girdhar Gopal Lahoti, Jaipur vs. ITO, Kishangarh

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

ITA 682/JPR/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)&For Respondent: Shri R. A. Verma (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 211Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)(a)Section 69A

…Devi Somani vs. ITO in ITA No. 672/JP/2011 as well as the decision dated 17.10.2014 in case of Sh. Ashish Gupta vs. ITO in ITA No. 671/JP/2011. The ld. AR has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in caseof National Textiles vs. CIT 249 ITR 125 and submitted that if the assessee gives an explanation which is unproved but not dis-proved and circumstances do not lead to the reasonable and positive inference that the assessee’s case is false, the explanation cannot help the Department because there will be no material to show that the amount in question was the income of the assessee. T…

Sri.K.Vijay Arya, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1799/BANG/2016[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…rate particulars of income. The standard proforma without striking of the relevant clauses will lead to an inference as to non-application of mind.” 5. This aspect was also examined by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of National Textiles v. CIT 249 ITR 125 (Guj) and CIT v. Manu Engineering Works 122 ITR 306 (Guj). Following the aforesaid judgments, this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of E. Krishnappa v. ITO in ITA No.313 to 315/Bang/2014 dated 14.08.2015 and in the case of M/s. SLN Traders (in ITA No.1045/Bang/2015 & CO NO.210/Bang/2015 dated 30.6.2016) has also taken a view that where the Asses…

Ms. Shilpy Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3728/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…d Parkash, 15 TTJ (Chd) 112 (iii). Gordhandas Ramdas vs. ITO 20 TTJ (Ind) 291 (iv). Labchand Deokaran vs. ITO, 13 TTJ (Pune)90 (v). CIT vs. Agarwal Pipe Co. 240 ITR 880 (Del.) (vi). CIT v. Khimji Bhanjee & Co. 32 CTR (Bom) 296 (vii). National Textiles vs. CIT 249 ITR 125 (Guj) (viii). CIT vs. Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Inv. Ltd., 237 Taxman 104 (Del.) Several other decisions have also been relied on by the ld. AR of the assessee. 10. On the other hand, the ld. DR reiterated the findings reached by the ld. Authorities below in the impugned orders and submitted that the ld. Authorities below had no occasion to adjudicat…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Juhi Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3626/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. : 2004-05 Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S Juhi Investment Co. Pvt. Income Tax, Vs. Ltd., Circle-4(1), L-77, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, Room No. 407, C.R. Building, New Delhi I.P. Estate, (Pan:Aaacj2146B) New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…v. lK. Synthetics Ltd. [1996] 219 ITR 267 (Delhi). 7.5 We further find that it is trite law that merely because an addition has been made in the assessment order and confirmed in appeal, levy of penalty is not automatic. In National Textiles Vs. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 125 the Gujarat High Court held that it is not enough for the purpose of penalty that the amount has been assessed as income, the circumstances must show that there was animus i.e. conscious concealment or act of furnishing inaccurate particulars on the part of the assessee. In the present case, the assessee’s conduct and the explanation offered by…

Ramanlal Vithaldas & Co., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7388/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Ramanlal Vithaldas & Co., Asst. Commissioner Of Income 333, Shaikh Memon Street, Tax, 14(1), 2Nd Floor, Earnest House, Corner Of Mirchi Galli, Vs. Near Jumma Masjid, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 002 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaafr1209F (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Purushottam Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.05.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, D.R

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…see is not found to be false. It is not a case where the AO attempted to trace the parties were nonexistent or that these were cash credits. It is not a case where the loans were bogus. The Ld. A.R. has relied upon the following judgments: 1. National Textile 249 ITR 125 (Guj.) 2. Bhogilal Virchand 127 ITR 591 (Bom.) 3. Sikri & Co. 106 ITR 682 (Kol.) 3. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the Revenue Authorities. 4. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. In the instant case we have gone through the order of miscellaneous application and in the miscellaneous application it was stated by the assessee that…

Sharsh Finance & Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 878/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y. : 2005-06 M/S Sharsh Finance & Acit, Circle 18(1), Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. New Delhi 16L, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 (Pan: Aahcs1410L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ere disclosed by the appellant and the Ld. AO has not found any falsity in them. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant filed inaccurate particulars of income. Reliance is placed on the following: - i) National Textiles vs. CIT, (2001) 249 ITR 125 (Guj) "Conclusion In order to justify levy of penalty for addition of cash credits, there must be some material or circumstances leading to reasonable conclusion that the amount does represent assessee's income and the circumstances must show that there was conscious concealment or act of furnishing of inaccurate particulars; Expln. 1 does not…

M/S. Gahoi Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal stands allowed for

ITA 1213/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 271Section 68

…that it did and for this proposition the Ld. Authorised Representative placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of National Textiles I.T.A. No. 1212 & 1213/Del/2012 Assessment year 2005-06, 2006-07 versus CIT reported in 249 ITR 125. It was submitted that in view of the factual matrix of the case, the penalty imposed was patently wrong and the same should be deleted 3.1 In response, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the addition under section 68 had attained finality as no appeal had been preferred against the quantum addition. The Ld. Departmental Repre…

M/S. Gahoi Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal stands allowed for

ITA 1212/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 271Section 68

M/S. Chintels India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3793/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Asstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)

…ot proved but not fact disproved. Highlighting this, the Ld. AR submitted that no penalty can be imposed for facts not proved which are not disproved. Reliance was placed on Hon’ble Gujarat High Court’s decision in the case of National Textiles reported in 249 ITR 125. Further, the Ld. AR placed his reliance on the very recent Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in the case of Gopal Sons HUF (order dated 4/1/2017) to highlight that deeming fiction needs strict interpretation and any doubt must go to the benefit of taxpayer. 3.2 Further, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the page 4 of the Early Hearing Petition of…

M/S. Chintels India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3792/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Asstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)

M/S. Chintels India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3791/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Asstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)

ACIT 33(1), Mumbai vs. Balaji Construction, Mumbai

ITA 217/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountatn Member

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…negate the evidences brought on record by the assessee. Thus, the peculiar facts of this case do not permit the AO to levy penalty on the assessee. We also find support from the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of National Textiles vs. CIT 249 ITR 125 (Guj), wherein after analysing fundamental aspects of jurisprudence with respect to levy of penalty as envisaged in section 271(1)(c), it was observed as under: “The provisions of s. 68 permitting the AO to treat unexplained cash credit as income are enabling provisions for making certain additions, where there is failure by the assessee to give…

Vikram Singh, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 143/JPR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 143/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2007-08 cuke Shri Vikram Singh, The Dy.C.I.T., Vs. 1, Thaltara, Sirsi Road, Circle-3, Jaipur Khatipura, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1181 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Rajendra Jha (Addl.…

Priti Tarun Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 22, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3892/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Sh.Vijay Mehta (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Mahua Sarkar (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 271(1)Section 274Section 54

…rnishing inaccurate particular, regarding the income of the assessee and such a claim made in the return of income cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Further on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of National Textile Versus CIT 249 ITR 125, on the point that if the explanation which is un approved but not disproved i.e. it is not accepted but circumstances does not lead to reasonable and positive difference that assessee claim is false. And on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT Versus Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565) on the points that me…