Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors

13 SCC 369Supreme Court of India2008#729 most cited

What is Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors authority for?

For the applicability of Section 271(1)(c) penalty, the Assessing Officer must be satisfied that the assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars; however, this satisfaction is not required to be recorded in a particular manner or reduced to writing.

139

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors · Dharamendra Textile Processors · Section 271(1)(c) penalty · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · AO satisfaction for penalty · recording satisfaction · conditions for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) · scope of Section 271(1)(c) · Section 274.

Also reported as

174 Taxmann 57295 ITR 2441

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 143(3)Section 276CSection 14ASection 115JBSection 115JCSection 143

Issues it is cited on

section 276csection 276section 40a(2)(a)penalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particularssection 271aabconcealment of incomesection 274penalty u/s 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomesection 271(1)commissioner (appeals)

Judgments citing Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors

ACIT, Circle, Panchkula vs. M/S Himalayan Expressway Ltd., Pinjore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1614/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. Ashwani Kumar GargFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C

…ub: Written Submission in the above case- reg. In the above case, it is humbly submitted that the following decisions may kindly be considered with regard to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T.Act: 1. Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors T(2007) 295 ITR 2441 AS RELIED UPON BY THE AO IN THE PENALTY ORDER where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability for which willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting the civil liability as is the case in the matter of proceedings under section 276C. 2. CIT Vs Moser Baer India Ltd. (184 Taxman 8 (SC…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Phi Seeds (P) Ltd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 4366/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2007-08
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…iness income as agriculture income and thus ,the assessee is liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4.1 In support of her contention, she relied on following judicial pronouncements: “1. Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors f(2007) 295 ITR 2441 Where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability for which willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting the civil liability as is the case in the matter of proceedings under section 276C 2. CIT Vs Atul Mohan Binal (2009) 225 CTR 248 (SC) Where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that pena…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Phi Seeds Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 6645/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2006-07
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…iness income as agriculture income and thus ,the assessee is liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4.1 In support of her contention, she relied on following judicial pronouncements: “1. Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors f(2007) 295 ITR 2441 Where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability for which willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting the civil liability as is the case in the matter of proceedings under section 276C 2. CIT Vs Atul Mohan Binal (2009) 225 CTR 248 (SC) Where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that pena…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Phi Seeds Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 6622/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2004-05
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…iness income as agriculture income and thus ,the assessee is liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4.1 In support of her contention, she relied on following judicial pronouncements: “1. Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors f(2007) 295 ITR 2441 Where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability for which willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting the civil liability as is the case in the matter of proceedings under section 276C 2. CIT Vs Atul Mohan Binal (2009) 225 CTR 248 (SC) Where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that pena…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) vs. M/S Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt Ltd

ITA/502/2017HC Karnataka21 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10BSection 260

…ngs and the AO is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. The scope of Section 271(1)(c) has also been elaborately discussed by this Court in Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369 and CIT vs. Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 9 SCC 589. 11. The principle laid down by this Court, in our view, has been correctly followed by the Revenue and we find no illegality in the Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.502/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & Another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 17/18…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) vs. M/S Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt Ltd

ITA/503/2017HC Karnataka21 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10BSection 260

…ngs and the AO is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. The scope of Section 271(1)(c) has also been elaborately discussed by this Court in Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369 and CIT vs. Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 9 SCC 589. 11. The principle laid down by this Court, in our view, has been correctly followed by the Revenue and we find no illegality in the Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.503/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 17/18…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) vs. M/S Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt Ltd

ITA/504/2017HC Karnataka21 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10BSection 260

…laborately discussed by this Court in Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.504/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax CIT(A) & Another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 17/18 13 SCC 369 and CIT vs. Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 9 SCC 589. 11. The principle laid down by this Court, in our view, has been correctly followed by the Revenue and we find no illegality in the department initiating penalty proceedings in the instant case. We, therefore, fully agree with the view of the High Court. Hence, the appeal lacks merit and i…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt Ltd

ITA/506/2017HC Karnataka21 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10BSection 260

…ngs and the AO is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. The scope of Section 271(1)(c) has also been elaborately discussed by this Court in Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369 and CIT vs. Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 9 SCC 589. 11. The principle laid down by this Court, in our view, has been correctly followed by the Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.506/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & Another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 17/18 Revenue and we find no illegality in th…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) vs. M/S Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt Ltd

ITA/500/2017HC Karnataka21 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10BSection 260

…ngs and the AO is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. The scope of Section 271(1)(c) has also been elaborately discussed by this Court in Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369 and CIT vs. Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 9 SCC 589. 11. The principle laid down by this Court, in our view, has been correctly followed by the Revenue and we find no illegality in the Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.500/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & Another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 17/18…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) vs. M/S Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt Ltd

ITA/501/2017HC Karnataka21 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10BSection 260

…ngs and the AO is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. The scope of Section 271(1)(c) has also been elaborately discussed by this Court in Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369 and CIT vs. Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 9 SCC 589. 11. The principle laid down by this Court, in our view, has been correctly followed by the Revenue and we find no illegality in the Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.501/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 17/18…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) vs. M/S Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt Ltd

ITA/505/2017HC Karnataka21 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10BSection 260

…ngs and the AO is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. The scope of Section 271(1)(c) has also been elaborately discussed by this Court in Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369 and CIT vs. Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 9 SCC 589. 11. The principle laid down by this Court, in our view, has been correctly followed by the Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.505/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 17/18 Revenue and we find no illegality in t…

Aquatech Systems (Asia) Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…heavy reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra). The Hon’ble Apex Court has referred to the decisions of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Taxtile Processors reported as 13 SCC 369 and CIT Vs. Atul Mohan Bindal reported as 9 SCC 589 and held that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduced it in writing. There is no dispute about ITA No. 416/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2009-10 the manner of recording satisfaction. In whatever manner s…

M/S Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 548/ASR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 548/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…-10) Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills v. Asst. CIT record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. The scope of section 271(1)(c) has also been elaborately discussed by this court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369 [306 ITR 277] and CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 9 SCC 599 [317 ITR 1].’ (emphasis, ours) There was, therefore, no ambiguity in law for the Parliament to have stepped in by introducing section 271(1B), deeming a satisfaction where the order of assessment or reassessment contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). T…

ITO, Jaipur vs. Gajanan Towers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 751/JPR/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: The Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar &For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 24Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 69Section 69C

…ment proceedings and the AO is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. The scope of Section 271(l)(c) has also been elaborately discussed by this Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369 and CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 9 SCC 589. 11. The principle laid down by this Court, in our view, has been correctly followed by the Revenue and we find no illegality in the department initiating penalty proceedings in the instant case. We, therefore, fully agree with the view of the High Court. Hence, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.…

ITO Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Regency International Clothing P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1528/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Rajendra, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1528/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Satish R. Mody
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 4

…in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. The scope of Section 271(1)(c) has also been elaborately discussed by this court in Union of India vrs. Dharmendra 8 I.T.A. No. 1528/Mum/2016 Regency International Clothing Pvt. Ltd. Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369 and CIT Vrs. Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 9 SCC 589. 9. From the above facts and discussion, we are of the considered view that in view of specific provisions of I.T. Act, the claim raised by the assessee for claiming depreciation on his property which was admittedly under tenancy and the expenses for alleged professional fee and consultancy in view o…

Ajay Kumar Baid, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5946/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2008 - 2009 Ajay Kumar Baid Income Tax Officer 14(3)(1) 1St Floor, Chandra Mahal, Mumbai बनाम/ 241, Princess Street, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue P.A. No. Aaapb5350N

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

…ent proceedings and the AO is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. The scope of Section 271(1)(c) has also been elaborately discussed by this Court in Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369 and CIT vs. Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 9 SCC 589. The principle laid down by this Court, in our view, has been correctly followed by the Revenue and we find no illegality in the department initiating penalty proceedings in the instant case. We, therefore, fully agree with the view of the High Court. Hence, the appeal lacks meri and is dismissed. The…

DCIT Cir 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Xylon Electrotechnic Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1582/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit-3(3)(2) M/S Xylon Electrotechnic Room No. 609, 6Th Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Floor, Aayakar A-491, 3Rd Pasta Lane, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Colaba, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400005 Pan No. Aaacx0088Q Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 285/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Xylon Electrotechnic Dcit-3(3)(2) Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Vs. A-491, 3Rd Pasta Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Colaba, Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400005 Pan No. Aaacx0088Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. V. Mohan, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 133(6)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 41(1)

…ent proceedings and the AO is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. The scope of Section 271(1)(c) has also been elaborately discussed by this Court in Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369 and CIT vs. Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 9 SCC 589.” In the case of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya and Others (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held: “9. We will first take up the show-cause notice dated March 29, 1972, pertaining to the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. The assessment orders were already made and the reasons for iss…

Sansui Steels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 7(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1403/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Sansui Steel Pvt. Ltd. Ito-7(2)(2), 401-C, Gokul Building, Room No. 621-A, Vs. 80A Baroda Street, Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Iron Market, S.T. Road, Marg, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400009 Pan No.Aaacs8834K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjpe, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/09/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11/2017

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjpe, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ent proceedings and the AO is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. The scope of Section 271(1)(c) has also been elaborately discussed by this Court in Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369 and CIT vs. Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 9 SCC 589.” 7.2 In the case of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya and Others (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held: “9. We will first take up the show-cause notice dated March 29, 1972, pertaining to the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. The assessment orders were already made and the reasons for…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Acee Enterprises, New Delhi

ITA 6519/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.P.Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Satendra Pal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Rastogi, Adv
Section 143Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…sing officer has to be satisfied that a person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This court referred to another decision of this court in Union of India versus Dharamendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369 as also, the decision in Union of India versus Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills (2009) 13 SCC 448 and reiterated in paragraph 13 that (page 13 of 317 ITR): “13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271 (1) (c), conditions stated therein must exist.” Ays 2005-06 to 2008-09 5.1 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT versus Am…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Acee Enterprises, New Delhi

ITA 6518/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.P.Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Satendra Pal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Rastogi, Adv
Section 143Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…sing officer has to be satisfied that a person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This court referred to another decision of this court in Union of India versus Dharamendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369 as also, the decision in Union of India versus Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills (2009) 13 SCC 448 and reiterated in paragraph 13 that (page 13 of 317 ITR): “13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271 (1) (c), conditions stated therein must exist.” Ays 2005-06 to 2008-09 5.1 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT versus Am…