How many judgments cite New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT?

90 judgments on BharatTax cite New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT (282 ITR 642), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 274, Section 133A, Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 10(2A).

New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT

282 ITR 642High Court2006#1253 most cited

What is New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT authority for?

To levy a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the Assessing Officer must clearly specify whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars, and an ambiguous or unspecified charge renders the penalty invalid.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT · section 271(1)(c) · section 274 · specific charge penalty · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · penalty invalidity · non-application of mind · deletion of penalty · levy of penalty

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274 Section 133A Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 10(2A)Section 115JB Section 142(1)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

deletion of penalty section 271(l)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of income furnishing inaccurate particulars penalty under section 271(1)(c)concealment of income penalty u/s 271(1)(c)section 274 non-application of mind section 271(1)levy of penalty change of opinion

Judgments citing New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT

Jamna Devi Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 7(2), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 540/JPR/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…ng imposed on concealment of income or on furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the impugned penalty order. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court followed the ratio laid down in the case of New Sorathia Engg. Co. [2006] 282 ITR 642 (Guj-HC). 9. The above ratio laid down in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory(Supra) has been followed by various High courts in the below mentioned cases:- i. Shri Samson Perinchery, ITA 1154,953,1097,1226 OF 2014 (Order date – 5.01.2017)(Bombay High Court) ii. SSA'S Emerald Meadows[2016] 73 taxmann.com 241 (Karnataka High Court) ii…

Anil Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(1), Ward Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1516/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year 2014-15

For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…he satisfaction of the AO, the penalty order passed by the AO is liable to struck down on this ground alone. 6. For such a view, I usefully refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Company vs. CIT (2006) 282 ITR 642 (Guj.) and CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works (1980) 122 ITR 306 (Guj.). Similar view has been taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Gian Chand Batia vs. DCIT, 61 ITD 24 (All.). Therefore, where the AO is not sure about the nature of default and has confirmed the penalty on an altogether different ground than for which satisfaction under…

Vinod Gugnani, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-30(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3764/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee u/s 54 of the Act and sustained the other disallowances made by Assessing Officer.

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

….1,53,30,000/- but by inadvertently claimed Rs.1,71,12,909/-. He submitted that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer does not call for levy of penalty. In this regard, he relied on the following case laws:- (i) New Sorathia Engg. Co. vs. CIT [2006] 282 ITR 642 (Gujrat) (ii) CIT vs. Lakhdhir Lalji 85 ITR 77 (Guj). (iii) CIT vs. Kejriwal Iron Stores 168 ITR 715 (Raj.) (iv) CIT vs. Reliance Petropruducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (v) CIT vs. Nepani Biri Co. Trust (1991) 190 ITR 402, 403 (All.) (vi) Pankaj Kumar Gupta vs. Ito (ITAT Lucknow) ITA No.486/LKW/2016. 9. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the fi…

Vision Jewellers, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 530/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ng imposed on concealment of income or on furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the impugned penalty order. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court followed the ratio laid down in the case of New Sorathia Engg. Co. [2006] 282 ITR 642 (Guj-HC). 1.8. The above ratio laid down in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory(Supra) has been followed by various High courts in the below mentioned cases:- 1.8.i. SSA'S Emerald Meadows[2016] 73 taxmann.com 241 (Karnataka High Court) 1.8.ii. Mitsu Industries Ltd., ITA No. 216 of 2004, Gujarat High Court 1.9. SLP filed by the departm…

Shri Shivaji Dattatray Sonawane, Nashik vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 707/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryshivaji Dattatray Sonawane, Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Sonawane Mala, Samangaon Nashik. Road, Sinnar Phata, Nashik Road, Nashik. Pan: Acaps 3868 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Naimish Sanjay Dixit Revenue By : Shri M.G. Jasnani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/09/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 05.04.2023 For A.Y.2016-17 As Per The Grounds Of Appeal On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Naimish Sanjay DixitFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani, DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In absence of such finding, the order would be bad in law. This has been held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT [2006] 202 CTR 188 (Guj) / [2006] 282 ITR 642 (Guj). The Hon'ble High Court held that it is incumbent upon the AO to state whether the penalty was being levied for concealment of income or whether any inaccurate particulars of income has been furnished by the assessee. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajan & Co. [2005] 197 CTR 199 (Del.) has held that the AO should have p…

Ruchit Dineshbhai Doshi, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 2(2)(1), Surat

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 216/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Ruchit Dineshbhai Doshi, I.T.O., C-10, 5/6, Somakanji Estate-2, Opp- Ward-2(2)(1), Vs. Sanidev Mandir, Magdalla Bo, Surat. Surat-395007 (Gujarat) Pan No. Afxpd 4008 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…llow as a natural corollary when the assessee himself has disclosed all the details. To support such submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Co. Vs CIT (2006) 282 ITR 642, CIT Vs Jalaram Oil Mills (2002) 253 ITR 192 (Guj), Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 1 (Bom). 7. On the other, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue supported the orders of lower authorities. The ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order in para 12 of his order clearly re…

Sheetal Mehra, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-40(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 907/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediasheetal Mehra Vs. Ito Qp-40, 2Nd Floor, Ward – 40(1) Pitampura, New Delhi-34 New Delhi Pan No. Ajapm 1364 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Snehil, Adv. Revenue By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.07.2023

Section 271(1)(c)

…he action of the AO and CIT(A), the imposition of penalty is liable to be struck down on this ground alone. For such a view, we may usefully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Company vs. CIT (2006) 282 ITR 642 (Guj.) and decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of A2Z Maintenance & Engineering Services Limited vs. DCIT and others ITA No.2631/Del/2018 and ors. order dated 28.03.2023. In essence, where the concerned IT authorities are not sure about the nature of default, the panel action u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in law. 7. Conse…

Jatinder Pal Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 18, New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 1670/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…bay High Court against K P Madhusudan Supreme Court and Madan lal kishore Lal Allahabad High Court Specifically states that "No express invocation of explanation to sec. 271 in the notice u/s 271 is in our law necessary. G. New Sorathia Engineering Works HC- 282 ITR 642 at the initiation of proceedings a specific change is not required. It is only prima-facie-conclusiveness not to be considered by at the stage of initiation. H. Madhushree Gupta -Del High Court- A prima-facie satisfaction cannot be based on its conclusiveness. I. Godrej & Boyce (Bombay High Court) Page 78 & 79. In ITA No. 626 of 2010 and Writ P…

ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi vs. Anand Divine Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.4499/Del

ITA 4499/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

…taken from Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Kaushalya (1995)(216 ITR 660)(Bom.)(HC) and 12 ITA.No.4498/Del./2017 M/s. Anand Divine Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Co vs. CIT (2006) (282 ITR 642) (Guj.) (HC). Considering the fact that the appellant company was new in this line of business, it would not have been possible for the appellant to execute such large housing project without taking professional and consultancy services as per the service agreement, from ATS. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has produced…

ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi vs. Anand Divine Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.4499/Del

ITA 4498/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

The ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Dineshchandra R Agrawal Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 85/AHD/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 85/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT.D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…lso the AO was not sure about the allegation for which the penalty has to be levied. 5.12 In support of this, reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Manu Engineering [122 ITR 306]&New Sorathia Engineering Co. Vs. CIT [282 ITR 642]. This view has also been uphold by the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in the following cases:- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH "D" [CAMP AT BARODA] ITA No.3065/Ahd/2008 (Assessment Year:- 1997-98) The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-2(2), Baroda V/s Shri Nayan R Mongia, Mohit.. Radha Krishna Park Society, Nr. Akota Garden…

Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1138/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.90A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Circle-1, Ltu, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccm3201E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Shri Bhuvan Dhoopar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-22, New Delhi, Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Penalty Levied By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Considering The Material Available On Record. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Penalty Proceedings Are Separate & Distinct From Assessment Proceedings & Mere Disallowance Of A Claim Made By The Appellant Does Not Automatically Lead To Imposition Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C). 3. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Involved In Appellant’S Case Is Purely A Legal Issue To Be Decided On Interpretation Of The Provisions Of The Act & Merely Because Ld. Ao Adopts A View

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

…, some of which have been listed as under: - CIT vs. SSA'S Emerald Meadows: 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar) [Revenue’s SLP dismissed in 242 Taxman 180] - CIT vs. Shri Samson Perinchery ITA No. 1154 of 2014 dated 05.01.2017 (Bom- HC) - New Sorathia Engg. Co. v. CIT: 282 ITR 642 (Gujarat) - ACIL Ltd. vs. ACIT: [2022] 194 ITD 708 (Del Trib.) - Ram Singh Saini vs. ITO: ITA No. 6167 of 2019 (Del Trib.) - Ishita Technologies Private Ltd. vs. DCIT: ITA No. 2789 of 2017 (Del Trib.) - Sandeep Aggarwal vs. DCIT: ITA No. 1777 of 2018 (Del Trib.) 2.8. In the present case, as stated above, the Assessing Officer has failed to spec…

Shri Paresh K. Sorathiya, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 342/SRT/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.342/Srt/2018 (Ay 2009-10) (Hearing In Physical Court) Shri Paresh Sorathiya Income Tax Officer 195, Ambica Nagar No.2, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Vs Opp. Arogya Kendra, Gate, Surat-395001 Katargam Road, Surat Pan : Axbps 9579 C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ITA No.342/SRT/2018 (AY 2009-10) (Hearing in Physical Court) Shri Paresh Sorathiya Income Tax Officer 195, Ambica Nagar No.2, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Vs Opp. Arogya Kendra, Gate, Surat-395001 Katargam Road, Surat PAN : AXBPS 9579 C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, CA राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 07.07.2022 उ"घोषणा क" तार"…

Jitendrakumar Bhailal Dodiya, Savarkundla vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Amreli

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 45/RJT/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, DR

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

…that issued penalty show cause notice for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income thus assessment order contains no specific charge is established. 2.2.2 The Hon. Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathiya Engineering Works 282 ITR 642 (Guj) and Jyoti Ltd. 34 TAXMAN.com 65(GUJ). Hon. Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Maganur Builders ITA No. 616/2015 and in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Karn) has been placed to hold that no penalty can be levied without specifying proper charge, 3.1 Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon. ITAT R…

Shri Vijay J. Faldu, Upleta vs. The ITO, Ward-1 (4), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 110/RJT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, DR

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

…eedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. 2.1.2 Thus no specific charge is mention as to whether it is concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2.1.3 The Hon. Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathiya Engineering Works 282 ITR 642 (Guj) and Jyoti Ltd., 34 TAXMAN.com 65 (GUJ). Hon. Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Maganur Builders ITA No. 616/2015 and in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Vijay J. Faldu vs.ITO Asst.Year - 2011-12 Ginning factory 359 ITR 565 (Karn) has been pleased to hold that no penalty can be levied without specifying proper charge. 3.1 Relianc…

Raj Kumari Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Dy CIT, CC-II, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Bhatra (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a

Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ing imposed on concealment of income or on furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the impugned penalty order. Hon'ble Gujrat High Court followed the ratio laid down in the case of New Sorathia Engg. Co. [2006] 282 ITR 642 (Guj-High Court). The above ratio laid down in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory Supra) has been followed by various High Courts in the below mentioned cases: Shri Samson Perinchery. ITA 1154, 953, 1097, 1226 of 2014 (Order date —5.01.2017) (Bombay High Court) ii SSA's Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 241 (Karnataka High Cour…

Vijaybhai Dashrathbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-7(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2622/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Us: -

For Appellant: Shri A.C. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…l Mills 253 ITR 192 4. The penalty order is bad in law in as much as there is no specific charge as to whether the assessee has concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. CIT Vs Manu Engg. 122 ITR 506 (Guj) Sorathia Engg. Co. Vs CIT 282 ITR 642 (Guj) Mitsu Industries Ltd. Vs DCIT (Guj) Tax Appeal No. 216 of 2004 dated 16.10.2014” 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee during the captioned year was having taxable income under the head “income from other sources” being interest income. The assessee however did not file return of income as required u/s 139 of the A…

Rakesh Kumar Pawa, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-18, New Delhi

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

ITA 8059/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2009-10 Rakesh Kumar Pawa, Vs Acit, E-21,Park Lane, Circle-18, Kalindi Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Agrpp6439R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Mathur, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 Order

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…nataka High Court in the case of SSA Emerald Meadows and the SLP filed by the Revenue was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Co. vs. CIT, reported in 282 ITR 642, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that the order of penalty must clearly state whether it is for concealment or for furnishing inappropriate particulars. Order stating penalty for one of the offences was not valid. The Hon’ble Court has held that it is incumbent upon the AO to state whether penalty was being levied for concealmen…

Shri Jai Hind Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-5(4), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 146/JPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh ,u-ds-lSuh] mik/;{k ,oa Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 146/JP/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 cuke Shri Jai Hind Agarwal, I.T.O., Vs. 70-A, Near Valmiki Bhawan, Gupta Ward 5(4), Garden, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. PAN No.: ABEPA 3189 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date…

Vinay Gupta, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 28, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 560/KOL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Choudhuryi.T.A. No.560/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vinay Gupta………………..........................………………………….……Appellant C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-1. [Pan:Adcpg1931B] Vs. Dcit, Circle-28, Kolkata.........……………........…………...………..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 10, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 11, 2021 Order Shri Partha Sarathi Choudhury: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-8, Kolkata Dated 24.08.2020 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act As Per The Grounds Of Appeal On Record. 2. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee In This Case Is The Imposition Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. At The Very Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Charge For Imposition Of Penalty Is Not Specific & That The Assessing Officer Has Failed To Arrive At The Satisfaction As To Which Charge The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Should Be Levied On The Assessee Whether For Concealment Of Income Or For Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income. That Bringing Our Attention To The Penalty Notice Annexed At Page 17 Of The Paper-Book, Which Is As Follows:

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…s caught in the paradox of his own making which renders the impugned order imposing penalty passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act ex facie null in law and ab initio void. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of NEW SORATHIA ENGINEERING CO. -VS- C.I.T. (2006) 282 ITR 642 (GUJ) held that where penaly order and order of Commissioner (Appeals) showed that no clear- cut finding had been reached as to whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) was being levied for concealment of particulars of income by the assessee or whether any inaccurate particulars of income had been furnished, order of penalty could not be sustaine…