Sushil Kumar Sharad Kumar v. CIT

232 ITR 588High Court#6725 most cited
17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Judgments citing Sushil Kumar Sharad Kumar v. CIT

ALFIYA AYAZALI SAYYAD,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 206/NAG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ed CIT(A) in Para–5.1.4 to 5.1.5 has held as under:– Alfiya Ayazali Sayyad ITA no.206/Nag./2022 3.1.4. The views similar to the above decision of Delhi and Kerala High Courts were expressed by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Sharad Kumar 232 ITR 588 (Alld.). Similarly, the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Sohan Singh 254 ITR 170 has held that for the purpose of penalty, matter has to be examined in the background of Explanation to section 271(1)(c). It has also been held that evidence recorded during the course of assessment proceedings, through not conclusive, are not totally irreleva…

ASSOCIATED MACHINERY CORP. PVT. LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 4735/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

…- concealment penalty can be levied:CaseLaws: Addl.CIT vs. Chandrakantha and another (MP) 205 ITR 607. Addl.CIT vs. Lakshmi Industries and cold storage Co. Ltd. (All) 146 8 M/s Associated Machinery Corp. Ltd. ITR 492. Sushil Kumar Sharad Kumar vs. CIT (All) 232 ITR 588 CIT vs. Md. WarasatHussain (Patna) 171 ITR 405 A.M. Shah & Co. vs. CIT (Guj) 238 ITR 415 CIT vs. Krishnaswamy and Sons (Mad) 219 ITR 157 CIT vs. Svvarup Cold Storate& General Mills (All) 136 ITR 435. CIT vs. Chandra Vilas Hotel (Guj) 291 ITR 202 If the assessment order became final, it was binding on both parties and neither party could seek to…

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. LAXMICHAND D. ROHIRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed and cross-objections filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 1178/MUM/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.1178 To 1184/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2007-08) Dy. Cit Cc-3(4) Central बिधम/ Shri Lakhmichand D. Rohira, 2301, Dheeraj Heigh Range-3 Vs. Gaurav, New Link Rd, Room No. 1915, 19Th Floor, Andheri (W), Mumbai- Air India Bldg, Nariman 400053. Point, Mumbai-400021. Co. Nos. 250 To 256/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita. Nos.1183, 1178, 1179, 1180, 1181 1182 & 1184/M/2016) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07& 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Lakhmichand D. Dy. Cit Cc-3(4) Central Rohira, 2301, Dheeraj Heigh Range-3 Vs. Gaurav, New Link Rd, Room No. 1915, 19Th Floor, Andheri (W), Mumbai- Air India Bldg, Nariman 400053. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adnpr6420M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2018

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (DR)
Section 132

…ned D.R. before us vehemently contended by referring to various case laws which we will discuss why the order of the CIT(A) should be reversed. Firstly he relied on the order of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Sharad Kumar vs. CIT 232 ITR 588. In that case we noted that the penalty has been levied for concealment of particulars of income. The Hon'ble High Court confirmed the levy of penalty as there is evidence of higher expenditure incurred by the assessee and during the penalty proceedings the assessee did not lead any evidence to prove that the expenditure incurred by him for house…

SHRI ASHWINBHAI B.POKIA,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT.CIRCLE-9,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1011/AHD/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1011/Ahd/2014/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2004-05 Ashwinbhai B. Pokia Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of 61, Saify Society, Income-Tax, L.H.Road, Surat – 395006. Circle-9, Surat. [Pan: Ackpp 5049 C] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri J.K.Chandnani, Sr.Dr राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 12.07.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 31.07.2018

Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…vs. Gurbachan lal in 250 ITR 157 (Delhi), Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Viswakarma Industries vs. CIT (1982) 132 ITR 652, Hon'ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. K.P.Madhusudana in 246 ITR 218, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Sushil Kumar Sharad Kumar 232 ITR 588 (Alld), Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sohan Singh 254 ITR 170 held that for the purpose of penalty matter has to be examined in the background of Explanation to Section 271(1)(c). It has also been held that evidences recorded during the course of assessment proceedings, though not conclusive, are not totally irrelevant. Page 5 of 7 Ashwin…

M/S VATSA CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD.,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 10/PAT/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 09/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 10/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/S Vatsa Constructions Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., Kasturba Path, North S.K. Circle-2, Puri, Patna-800013 Patna (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcv2236R Assessee By : Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kausik Kumar Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2018 Order These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 06.10.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Patna.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kausik Kumar Das, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…’s income has been determined on an estimate basis and no case of any concealment and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars is made out against the assessee. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Sarad Kumar Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, 232 ITR 588 (All) has held that where additions are made purely on estimate without reference to any evidence/materials being on record, penalty cannot be levied on the figures which are merely based on guess work or estimate. In view of this and respectfully following the judgments cited (supra), we are of the view that it is not a fit case to levy penalty…

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

…ticulars of income and the addition made by the AO was sustained by this Tribunal. The ld. DR has relied upon the orders of the authorities below as well as the decisions as under:- • CIT vs. Smt. Chandrakanta 205 ITR 607 • Shushil Kumar Sarad Kumar vs. CIT 232 ITR 588 • A.M. Shah & Co. vs. CIT 238 ITR 415 6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. In the reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 8 Shri Girdhar Gopal Lahoti vs. ITO 147 of the Act the AO made a total addition of Rs. 22,45,222/- on account of three issues. The ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the ass…

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5699/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IT Appeal No. 79 of 2008). The learned D.R. contended that the CIT(A) was not correct in deleting the penalty on technical ground and in this regard he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Sharad Kumar vs. CIT 232 ITR 588 for the proposition of law that the assessee having shown low household expenses whereas there is evidence of higher expenditure. This proves that initial burden to prove concealment has been discharged by the Department as the assessee has not laid any fresh evidence in penalty proceedings. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the “I” Ben…

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5698/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IT Appeal No. 79 of 2008). The learned D.R. contended that the CIT(A) was not correct in deleting the penalty on technical ground and in this regard he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Sharad Kumar vs. CIT 232 ITR 588 for the proposition of law that the assessee having shown low household expenses whereas there is evidence of higher expenditure. This proves that initial burden to prove concealment has been discharged by the Department as the assessee has not laid any fresh evidence in penalty proceedings. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the “I” Ben…

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5697/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IT Appeal No. 79 of 2008). The learned D.R. contended that the CIT(A) was not correct in deleting the penalty on technical ground and in this regard he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Sharad Kumar vs. CIT 232 ITR 588 for the proposition of law that the assessee having shown low household expenses whereas there is evidence of higher expenditure. This proves that initial burden to prove concealment has been discharged by the Department as the assessee has not laid any fresh evidence in penalty proceedings. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the “I” Ben…

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5696/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IT Appeal No. 79 of 2008). The learned D.R. contended that the CIT(A) was not correct in deleting the penalty on technical ground and in this regard he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Sharad Kumar vs. CIT 232 ITR 588 for the proposition of law that the assessee having shown low household expenses whereas there is evidence of higher expenditure. This proves that initial burden to prove concealment has been discharged by the Department as the assessee has not laid any fresh evidence in penalty proceedings. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the “I” Ben…

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5695/MUM/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IT Appeal No. 79 of 2008). The learned D.R. contended that the CIT(A) was not correct in deleting the penalty on technical ground and in this regard he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Sharad Kumar vs. CIT 232 ITR 588 for the proposition of law that the assessee having shown low household expenses whereas there is evidence of higher expenditure. This proves that initial burden to prove concealment has been discharged by the Department as the assessee has not laid any fresh evidence in penalty proceedings. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the “I” Ben…

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5694/MUM/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IT Appeal No. 79 of 2008). The learned D.R. contended that the CIT(A) was not correct in deleting the penalty on technical ground and in this regard he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Sharad Kumar vs. CIT 232 ITR 588 for the proposition of law that the assessee having shown low household expenses whereas there is evidence of higher expenditure. This proves that initial burden to prove concealment has been discharged by the Department as the assessee has not laid any fresh evidence in penalty proceedings. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the “I” Ben…

M/S AMMINABHAVI BROTHERS,DHARWAD vs. ITO, HUBLI

In the result, all five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 955/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Balaram P. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. K. Biju JCIT (DR)
Section 271

…timated addition and therefore, in the facts of the present case which are identical in all years, penalty is justified. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- a) CIT vs. S. Krishnaswamy & Sons, 219 ITR 157 (Mad.), b) Sushilkumar Sharadkumar vs. CIT, 232 ITR 588 (All.), c) CIT vs. Smt. Chandrakanta, 205 ITR 607 (MP). 6. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that there is no dispute that the addition on which penalty is imposed is an estimated addition in each year. In the light these facts, first we examine the applicability of judgments cited by both sides. Learned AR of the assessee has pl…

M/S AMMINABHAVI BROTHERS,DHARWAD vs. ITO, HUBLI

In the result, all five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 954/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Balaram P. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. K. Biju JCIT (DR)
Section 271

…timated addition and therefore, in the facts of the present case which are identical in all years, penalty is justified. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- a) CIT vs. S. Krishnaswamy & Sons, 219 ITR 157 (Mad.), b) Sushilkumar Sharadkumar vs. CIT, 232 ITR 588 (All.), c) CIT vs. Smt. Chandrakanta, 205 ITR 607 (MP). 6. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that there is no dispute that the addition on which penalty is imposed is an estimated addition in each year. In the light these facts, first we examine the applicability of judgments cited by both sides. Learned AR of the assessee has pl…

M/S AMMINABHAVI BROTHERS,DHARWAD vs. ITO, HUBLI

In the result, all five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 953/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Balaram P. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. K. Biju JCIT (DR)
Section 271

…timated addition and therefore, in the facts of the present case which are identical in all years, penalty is justified. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- a) CIT vs. S. Krishnaswamy & Sons, 219 ITR 157 (Mad.), b) Sushilkumar Sharadkumar vs. CIT, 232 ITR 588 (All.), c) CIT vs. Smt. Chandrakanta, 205 ITR 607 (MP). 6. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that there is no dispute that the addition on which penalty is imposed is an estimated addition in each year. In the light these facts, first we examine the applicability of judgments cited by both sides. Learned AR of the assessee has pl…

M/S AMMINABHAVI BROTHERS,DHARWAD vs. ITO, HUBLI

In the result, all five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 952/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Balaram P. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. K. Biju JCIT (DR)
Section 271

…timated addition and therefore, in the facts of the present case which are identical in all years, penalty is justified. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- a) CIT vs. S. Krishnaswamy & Sons, 219 ITR 157 (Mad.), b) Sushilkumar Sharadkumar vs. CIT, 232 ITR 588 (All.), c) CIT vs. Smt. Chandrakanta, 205 ITR 607 (MP). 6. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that there is no dispute that the addition on which penalty is imposed is an estimated addition in each year. In the light these facts, first we examine the applicability of judgments cited by both sides. Learned AR of the assessee has pl…

M/S AMMINABHAVI BROTHERS,DHARWAD vs. ITO, HUBLI

In the result, all five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 951/BANG/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Balaram P. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. K. Biju JCIT (DR)
Section 271

…timated addition and therefore, in the facts of the present case which are identical in all years, penalty is justified. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- a) CIT vs. S. Krishnaswamy & Sons, 219 ITR 157 (Mad.), b) Sushilkumar Sharadkumar vs. CIT, 232 ITR 588 (All.), c) CIT vs. Smt. Chandrakanta, 205 ITR 607 (MP). 6. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that there is no dispute that the addition on which penalty is imposed is an estimated addition in each year. In the light these facts, first we examine the applicability of judgments cited by both sides. Learned AR of the assessee has pl…