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

Sh. Arun Duggal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 740/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri K.N. Chary, Jm Assessment Year : 2006-07 Arun Duggal, Vs. Dcit, C/O Shriram Capital, Circle-31(1), 709, 7Th Floor, Ansal Bhawan, New Delhi. Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. Pan: Aejpd7754D Assessee By : Shri Lalit Mohan Pandey, Ca Deptt. By : Shri S.K. Jain, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan Pandey, CA

Section 271(1)(c)

…e particulars furnished by the assessee were not inaccurate. 4 5. At the most, the assessee’s claim of deduction can be considered as unproved claim and not a disproved claim of expenditure. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in National Textiles vs. CIT (2001) 249 ITR 125 (Guj.), has held that in order to justify levy of penalty for addition of cash credits, the explanation tendered by the assessee must be disproved. Deleting the penalty so imposed, the Hon’ble High court held that it was not a case of imposition of penalty. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Durga Kamal Rice Mills vs. CIT (2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal…

Sri. S.D. Raddi, Dharwad vs. Asst.C.I.T., Hubli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 947/BANG/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Oct 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Ashok A. Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.R.V. Sreenivasan, Jt. CIT(DR)

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…

Thakkar Popatlal Velji Sales Ltd., Panvel vs. DCIT, Central Circle 25, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5795/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Thakkar Popatlal Velji Acit, Sales Ltd. Central Circle-25, 4Th Floor, बनाम/ Office No.2, Neel Presidency, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Opp. Telephone Exchange, Dr. M. K. Road, Panvel, Raigad, Mumbai-400020 Maharashtra-410206 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabct7939D "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Manish Sanghvi Shri B.D. Naik-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 25/08/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh () The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The By The Impugned Order Dated 20/06/2013 Of The Ld. First Appellate Authority

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…the concealment. The ratio laid down in CIT vs Devandas Perumal & Co. 140 ITR 943 (Bom.), CIT vs Aarkay Saree Museum 187 ITR 147(Bom), Laxminarain Ramavatar vs ITO (31 TTJ 478)(JP), ITO vs Dr. K.V.R. Krishnaji (40 taxman 222) (Hyd), National Textiles vs CIT 249 ITR 125 (Guj.), CIT vs P.K. Narayanan (238 ITR 905) (Ker.), supports our view. 2.3. It is an accepted principle of law that if there is difference of opinion on a particular issue, then it cannot be a case of concealment for which the ratio laid down in CIT vs Garg Engineering Company (235 ITR 452, 454)(All.) and Cement marketing of India Ltd. Vs Asst. C…

M/S Ennoble Construction vs. DCIT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1844/BANG/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia

For Respondent: Dr.Sibichen K. Mathew, CIT-III(DR)

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

…el for the assessee placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT & Anr. V. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Karn); the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the cases of National Textiles v. CIT, 249 ITR 125 (Guj) & CIT v. Manu Engineering Works, 122 ITR 306 (Guj); and the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Shri E. Krishnappa v. ITO in ITA No.313 to 315/Bang/2014 dated 14.08.2015. 5. Per contra, the ld. DR has submitted that mere non-striking a particular column in the notice would not be that much to fatal the validity of penalty proceedings…

Smt. G. Lakshmi Aruna vs. DCIT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1812/BANG/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia

For Respondent: Dr.Sibichen K. Mathew, CIT-III(DR)

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

Dilip Shirodkar, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6607/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 271(1)(c)

…shadow of doubts. 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 vs 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 vs Upendra V. Mithani (ITA No 1860 of 2009 Dt 5th August, 2009), wherein following observations were made: “The issue involved in the…

M/S. Godwin Maria Visuvasam, Chennai vs. ITO, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1911/CHNY/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G.Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Duraipandian,D.R

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

…d not disproving the contention of the assessee with regard to the genuineness of the receipts. As held by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT reported in [2004] 265 ITR 025 relying on M/s.National Textiles reported in [2001]249 ITR 125(Guj.), there is a difference in “facts not proved” and “facts disproved”. It is further held that penalty can be levied only for the latter. Similar view has been taken in CIT v. Vidyagauri Natverlal & Ors., reported in [1999] 153 CTR 546 (Guj). Being so, in the present case, the explanation given by the assessee not disproved by the ld. Asses…

Gautam Kumar Mitra, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 54, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 7/KOL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 07/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCA & Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT.Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 44A

…nation 1 to Sec.271(1) ( c ) of the Act would not be applicable and no penalty could be imposed in respect of such addition. In this regard the Assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of National Textiles Vs. CIT 249 ITR 125 (Guj.). (iv) On the addition of Rs.89,33,450/- the Assessee pointed out that the addition in question was made owing to the method of accounting followed by the Assessee and that the genuineness of these expenses were never in doubt. In respect of such addition there cannot be any inference that the Assessee attempted to conceal particulars of in…

DDIT(It) - 2(1), Kolkata. vs. Raj Narayan Sinha, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 867/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2004-05 Ddit(It)-2(1), Aayakar V/S. Raj Narayan Sinha Bhawan Poorva, 2Nd C/O A.S.Gupta & Co., Floor, Room No. 10, Old Post Office 211,110, Shantipally, Road, Kolkata-01 Kolkata-700107 [Pan No.Ayrps 5729 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276CSection 49Section 55(2)(b)

…h Court in the case of Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT 265 ITR 25,183 CTR; 130 taxmann 553 as follows:- “When two views, are possible, no penalty can be imposed is a principle that has been enunciated in the said two decisions in National Textiles v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 125 (Gj) and CIT v. P.K. Narayanan [1999] 238 ITR 905 (Ker). In CIT v. P.K.Narayanan [1999] 238 ITR 905 (Ker), it was held that unless the amount is owned by the assessee and there is a conclusive finding to that effect it is not hit by Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c). whereas in National Textiles v CIT [2001] 249 ITR 125 (Guj), it was held that u…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Byru Venkateswarlu

Appeal is dismissed

ITTA/341/2005HC Telangana21 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 271(1)(c)

…HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 341 / 2005 Malpani House Of Stones, A Registered Partnership Firm, Pitaliyas Building, Pitaliyon Ka Chowk, Johari Bazar Jaipur though its partner Shri Shyam Das Malpani s/o Shri Shrikrishan Malpani. ----Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Office, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prakul Khurana For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi _____________________________________________________ HON'…

Mehta Sulfites (I) Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s allowed

ITA 4771/MUM/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4771/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1996-97)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ncalled for and therefore the same deserved deletion by reversing the order of CIT(A). He strongly placed reliance on SHREE NIRMAL COMMERCIAL LTD. vs. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX 218 CTR(581) Bombay High Court and NATIONAL TEXTILES Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 249 ITR 125 Gujrat High Court. The ld. DR while relying on the orders of authorities below requested for sustaining the order of CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record and find that the assessee could not produce confirmations in respect of 13 parties from whom the assessee had raised unsecured loans amounting…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ecom Concepts (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 2627/DEL/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2015AY 2001-02

For Appellant: Sh. Raman Kant Garg, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Naveen Gupta, Adv

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

…culars of income. In the absence of such finding, the penalty order is liable to be quashed. In this regard we rely on the following precedents: a) CIT v. Balbir Singh [2008] 304 ITR 125/[2007] 164 Taxman 65 (Punj. & Har.) (b) National Textiles v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 125/114 Taxman 203 (Guj) (c) Nainu Mal Het Chand v. CIT [2007] 294 ITR 185/160 Tamxan 49 (All) (d) CIT v. Super Metal Re-rollers (P.) Ltd. [2004] 265 ITR 82/135 Taxman 407 (Delhi) (e) Diwan Enterprises v. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 571 (Delhi) (f) CIT v. Shivnarayan Jamnalal & Co. [1998] 232 ITR 311/[1996] 89 Taxman 420 (MP) (g) CIT v. T. Abdul Majeed [1998]…

Sh. Ashwani Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2422/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08 Ashwani Jain, A-92, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Gujrawalan Town, Part-1, Income Tax, Circle-20(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Aahpj3505G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Sh. Rakesh Gupta & Tarun Kumar, Advocates Respondent By : Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Xxii, New Delhi, Dated 31.12.2012 Passed For The Assessment Year 2007-08. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: I. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao In Levying Penalty Of Rs.6,23,046/- & That Too Without Assuming Jurisdiction As Per Law & Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & The Impugned Penalty Order Being Illegal & Void Ab-Initio. Ii. That In Any Case & In Any View Of The Matter, Action Of Ld. Cit(A) In Not Quashing The Penalty Order Framed By Ld. Ao Is Beyond Jurisdiction & Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & The Impugned Penalty Order Being Illegal & Void Ab-Initio & The Impugned Penalty Order Has Been Framed Without Considering The Submissions/Evidences Of The Assessee & Without Providing Any Adverse

For Appellant: S/sh. Rakesh Gupta & Tarun Kumar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…no penalty is leviable and in respect of an item for which the addition was made based on the concession of the party and in support of this proposition, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of National Textiles Vs. CIT, (2001) 249 ITR 125 (Guj.). He also submitted that no penalty can be levided based on the DVO’s report as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff Vs. CIT, 291 ITR 519 (SC) and he finally submitted that the Assessing Officer himself was not sure as to what charge should be levelled against the appellant either for concealment of particulars o…

ACIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi vs. T.D.T. Copper Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2411/DEL/2006[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2015AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year: 2000-01 Acit, Circle-16(1), Vs. M/S T.D.T. Copper Ltd, New Delhi 7-Jagriti Enclave, Vikas Marg, Delhi (Pan:Aaact1028N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, Dr Respondent By : S/Sh. R.S. Singhvi, Ca & Satyajit, Ca Date Of Hearing: 09.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.09.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: This Appeal Arise Out Of The Order Of Hon’Ble High Court Of Delhi In Ita No. 1242 Of 2008, Dated 14Th December, 2009 Whereby The Earlier Order Of This Tribunal Dated 17Th January, 2008 Was Set Aside. The Revenue Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Xix, New Delhi, Dated 21St April, 2006 For The Assessment Year 2000-01. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2000-01 On 29.11.2000, Disclosing A Loss Of Rs. 11,97,57,110/-. Subsequently, The Return Of Income Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment & The Assessment Came To Be Completed Under Section 143(3) Vide

For Appellant: Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, DRFor Respondent: S/sh. R.S. Singhvi, CA & Satyajit, CA

Section 143(3)Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)

…to the addition. In the absence of such finding, the penalty order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as held in the following decisions: 4 (a) CIT v. Balbir Singh [2008] 304 ITR 125/[2007] 164 Taxman 65 (Punj. & Har.) (b) National Textiles v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 125/114 Taxman 203 (Guj) (c) Nainu Mal Het Chand v. CIT [2007] 294 ITR 185/160 Tamxan 49 (All) (d) CIT v. Super Metal Re-rollers (P.) Ltd. [2004] 265 ITR 82/135 Taxman 407 (Delhi) (e) Diwan Enterprises v. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 571 (Delhi) (f) CIT v. Shivnarayan Jamnalal & Co. [1998] 232 ITR 311/[1996] 89 Taxman 420 (MP) (g) CIT v. T. Abdul Majeed [1998]…