Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 143(3), Section 115JB, Section 37(1), Section 147, Section 14A.

Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors

Q: How many judgments cite Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors?

501 judgments on BharatTax cite Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors (306 ITR 277), spanning 2009 to 2026.

306 ITR 277Supreme Court of India2008#136 most cited

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

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is a strict civil liability, and willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting it. The explanation appended to the section indicates this element of strict liability for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

501

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,297 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors · 306 ITR 277 · section 271(1)(c) · penalty for concealment · furnishing inaccurate particulars · strict liability · civil liability · willful concealment not required · penalty assessment

Also reported as

174 Taxmann 571212 CTR 432

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 115JB Section 37(1)Section 147 Section 14A Section 1961 Section 148

Issues it is cited on

furnishing inaccurate particulars of income furnishing inaccurate particulars penalty u/s 271(1)(c)penalty under section 271(1)(c)concealment of income section 274 levy of penalty section 271(1)section 271 section 271(1)(c)section 27 section 115jb

Judgments citing Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors

M/S. Mount Everest Mineral Water Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are partly

ITA 1498/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1498/Del./2014 Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Mount Everest Mineral Water Ltd., vs. D.C.I.T., Circle 5(1), (Merged with Tata Global Beverage Ltd.) New Delhi I-3/1, B-1, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Estate, New Delhi. (PAN: AAACM 1274F) ITA No. 2283/Del./2014 Asstt. Year : 2008-09 D.C.I.T., Circle 5(1), vs. Mount Everest Mineral Water Ltd., New Delhi (Merged with Tata Global Beverage Ltd.) I-3/1, B-1, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Estate, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Asse…

Hemalatha, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1029/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1029/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Respondent: Mr.B. Sahadevan, JCIT

Section 24Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…he case of Union of India vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills reported in (2009) 13 SCC 448, considered the earlier decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors & Ors.,, reported in (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) and held that it goes without saying that for applicability of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, condition stated therein must exist. The above said decision came up for consideration in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt., Ltd., reported in (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC). On reading of Section 27(1) (C), the Hon’ble S…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Control & Switchgear Contractors Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6507/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Control & Switchgear Contractors Ltd, Circle-3(1), 222, Okhla Indl. Estate, New Delhi Vs. New Delhi Pan:Aabcc3734B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)

…the change in the identity of the existing asset but it is the new asset coming into existence therefore penalty was levied. The ld CIT(A) also confirmed penalty on same relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court UOI Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors 306 ITR 277 (S.C.). Therefore the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The ld AR submitted that in the case of the assessee for AY 2006-07 in identical circumstances penalty u/s 271(1)(c) levied by the AO is deleted by coordinate bench in ITA No. 1981/Del/2013 dated 04.03.2015, therefore the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. 8. The ld DR re…

DCIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vinamra Universal Traders P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 2018/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Dy. C.I.T. – 8(3)(2) M/S. Vinamra Universal Room No. 615, 6Th Floor Traders Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Jai Centre, 1St Floor Mumbai 400020 34, P. D’Mello Rd., Opp. Red Gate Mumbai 400009 Pan – Aaccv5090J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. S. Padmaja & Shri S.K. PodarFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Mehta & Shri Govind Javeri

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 94(7)

…ents has tried to justify that there was no intentional concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 3.2 Then the A.O. having relied upon decisions given in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors & Others (2008) 306 ITR 277 held that penalty being a civil offence mens rea is not required to be proved and hence the plea taken by the assessee that the deduction claimed by them or disallowance made by them u/s. 14A, though on the lower side were not willful and there is no falsehood in their accounts is not acceptable. The A.O. then relying upon the decision given in t…

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)

…ion of the departmental authorities that assessee has manipulated the books of accounts at any point of time. 11. Ld. CIT(A) has misplaced his reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processors & Others [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC). Ld. CIT(A) has misread the judgment. Hon’ble Apex Court has not at all held that mens rea is not essential. 12. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills [2009] 224 CTR 1 (SC) and in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) observed that conditions in section 271(…

Prince Consultancy P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 13(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 6068/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ramlal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin S. ChhagFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 45ESection 54E

…6 wherein after, inter alia, considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. B. Kaushalya and Others (216 ITR 660) and the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dilip N. Shroff (291 ITR 519) (SC), Dharmendra Textile Processors (306 ITR 277) (SC) and Reliance Petro Products P. Ltd. ((322 ITR 158) (SC) and of the Hon'ble Karnataka high Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) the Bench has held that since the AO in that case had not specified in the said notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act, the limb under which the penalty is to b…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, we confirm the order of the Ld

ITA 191/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Acountant Member

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Rawal, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &

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

…mean the details supplied in the return, which are not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous. We must hasten to add here that in this case, there is no finding that any details supplied by the * [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC). ** [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC). assessee in its return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the ass…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, we confirm the order of the Ld

ITA 189/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Acountant Member

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Rawal, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &

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

Precision Contaneurs Ltd (Formerly Known As Vasparr Fische Ltd ), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 9(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 1996-97

ITA 3449/MUM/2011[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2017AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Ranathir Gupta

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

…is income. 5.2.3 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC), while referring to its decisions in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 and UOI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277, in para 9 of its order has observed and clarified that the basic reason why the decision in Dilip N. Shroff (supra) was overruled by Dharmendra Textile Procesors (supra) was only to the effect that mens rea was not to be considered an essential ingredient for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. No fault, however, was found with t…

Precision Contaneurs Ltd (Formerly Known As Vasparr Fische Ltd ), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 9(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 1996-97

ITA 3448/MUM/2011[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2017AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Ranathir Gupta

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

ACIT. Cir.-9(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Vasparr Fischer Ltd. (Now M/S. President Containers Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 1996-97

ITA 3445/MUM/2011[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2017AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Ranathir Gupta

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

Dr Sarita Milind Davare, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2187/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Ramlal Negi (Jm) I.T.A. No. 2187/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…me. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified in the case of Reliance petro products (322 ITR 158) has clarified that the observations made by it in the case of Dilip N Shroff with regard to “mens rea” alone have been overruled in Dharmendra Textile processors (306 ITR 277), meaning thereby that the above said observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N Shroff shall continue to prevail. 11. Hence, we are of the view that the application of mind on the part of the assessing officer at the time of issuing notice for initiation of penalty is a mandatory requirement and the non- application of…

Mahindra First Choice Wheels Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1801/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1801/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Mahindra First Choice Income Tax Officer- Range बनाम/ Wheels Ltd., (Formerly 2(1)(1), V. Automart India Limited), Aayakar Bhawan, 1006, 10 Th Floor, M.K. Road, Dlh Park, Mumbai – 400 020. S.V. Road, Near Goregaon Telephone Exchange, Goregaon, Mumbai – 400 062. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aaccm0794N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Jadhav,DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…which is not allowable. Therefore, on the assessee’s contention that disallowance/additions does not amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, I am convinced that the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. 40 DTR 249 (2010) is aptly applicable in this case whereby the Hon'ble High Court has clearly stated that the "assessee claimed that due to oversight, these amount were not added back in the computation of income - if one takes the view that a claim which is wholly untenable in law and has absolutely no foundation on which it could be made, the assessee woul…

Rashid D Lakdawala, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5757/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5757/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10) बनधम/ Rashid D Lakdawala, Income Tax Officer 20(2)(4), Room No.409, 4Th Floor, C/O Citizen Timber Marg, Vs. Satellite 2, Opp Garden Gate, Piramal Chambers, Film City Road, Jijibhoy Lane, Goregaon East, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai--400063 Mumbai-400012 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan :Aabpl6186F अपीऱार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Revenue By Shri B S Bist सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.10.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : .11.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Order Dated 4.7.2015 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-31, Mumbai Sustaining The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Despite Service Of Notice Through Rpad None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee On The Appointed Date Of Hearing , We, Therefore, Proceed To Decide The Appeal Ex-Parte On Merit After Hearing The Ld. Dr.

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

…orrect computation is not filed or that which is filed is not accurate, then the assessee would be liable to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5.3 In the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processors reported at 306 ITR 277, the Apex Court Clarified that mensrea was not required to be proved for levy of penalty but also held that levy of penalty is not automatic if he assessee can furnish a bonafide explanation. 5.4 In the case of CIT V/s vs Zoom Communication Pvt Ltd it has been held as under : 4 20. The Court cannot overlook the fact that only a small percentage…

M/S. Ms Shoes East Ltd, New Delhi vs. Assessing Officer, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 116/DEL/2014[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2016AY 1994-95

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 27I(1)(C)Section 69Section 80HSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 116/Del./2014 Asstt. Year : 1994-95 M/s. MS Shoes East Ltd., vs. D.C.I.T., Circle 6(1), 112-A,Ekta Enclave, New Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN: AABCS 5980M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Sanjay Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 21.11.2016 Date of pronouncement : 25.11.2016 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-IX, New Delhi dated 19.11.2…

Sonali A. Shah, Mumbai vs. I.T.O 14(3) (3), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5720/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2007-08 Mrs. Sonali A. Shah, I.T.O. – 14(3), Raj Parashar, Earnest House, 3Rd Floor, Nariman Point, Flat No.301-2-3, Vs. Mumbai – 21 95/F, Indranarayan Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Agdps 6844D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Aditya R. Ajgaonkar, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Aditya R. Ajgaonkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 144Section 145Section 271(1)(c)

…particulars of income whereby concealing the income, therefore there is no scope for any relief to be granted to the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (306 ITR 277). 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee is into trading of iron and steel and fabrics on a wholesale basis. The addition was made in the assessment order by estimating the gross profit at 20% from these two businesses i.e. textile and iron and steel by rejecting the books of accounts. The addition was made on estimate bas…

Dilipkumar Phoolchand Jain, Thane vs. ACIT Cen Cir 2, Thane

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5954/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dilip Kumar Phoolchand Jain Vs. Acit Cen Cir-2 Prop M.S. Globe Enterprises, 102/108 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Jagannath Chawl, Phanswadi R.No. 16Z, Wagle Indl Estate, Bhiwandi, Dist: Thane Thane(W)- 400604 Thane - 421302 Pan No. Aarpj1996K

For Appellant: Shri. Subodh Ratna ParkhiFor Respondent: Shri. B.S. Bisht

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…(Bom), it has been held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court that the assessee cannot escape liability for penalty by filing revised return after queries from the authority concerned. 6.5 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in UoI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) has held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is a civil liability and the wilful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil ITA No. 5954/Mum-2014 16 liability unlike the matter of prosecution u/s 276C. While considering an appeal against an order made u/s 271(1)(c), what is required to be examined is the record which the office…

Sunanda V Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5834/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5834/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Mrs. Sunanda V. Agarwala, Income Tax Officer – बनाम/ Damini, Flat No. 301, 21(2)(4), V. 3 Rd Floor, C-10, 5 Th Floor, Juhu Tara Road, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Juhu, Bkc, Bandra (East), Vile Parle (West), Mumbai – 400 051. Mumbai – 400 049. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Ablpa9852A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Vishwas Jadhav (D.R.)

Section 10(38)Section 112(1)Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…s that no penalty is leviable as the facts are identical. ITA 5834/Mum/2013 6 6. The ld. D.R. relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and also relied on the judicial decisions in the case of Union of India & Ors v. Dharmendra Textile Processors & Ors, (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) , Mak Data Private Limited v. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593(SC) and CIT v. Zoom Communication Private Limited (2010) 327 ITR 510(Del. HC) . 7. In the rejoinder, the ld. Counsel submitted that the Tribunal in the case of Virtuous Capital Limited v. ACIT in ITA No. 5647/Mum/2013 for the assessment year 2009-10 vide orders dated 19th November, 2015 h…

Shridhar Jaguste, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4346/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri C.N.Prasad, Jm Income Tax Appeal No.4346/Mum/2014 ( Assessment Year : 2009-2010) Mr. Shridhar Jaguste, C-247, Vs. Dcit, Circle-20(3), Mumbai Oshiwara Industrial Centre, Opp.Oshiwara Bus Depot, Of Link Road, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400104 Pan/Gir No. : Aacpj 4338 A /Assessee By : None /Revenue By : Shri N.Sathya Moorthy Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N.Sathya Moorthy

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, AM & SHRI C.N.PRASAD, JM Income Tax Appeal No.4346/Mum/2014 ( Assessment Year : 2009-2010) Mr. Shridhar Jaguste, C-247, Vs. DCIT, Circle-20(3), Mumbai Oshiwara Industrial Centre, Opp.Oshiwara Bus Depot, Of Link Road, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400104 PAN/GIR No. : AACPJ 4338 A /Assessee by : None /Revenue by : Shri N.Sathya Moorthy Date of Hearing : 21/10/2016 Date of Pronouncement : 21/10/2016 O R D E R PER C.N.PRASAD (J.M.) : This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of CIT(A)-31, Mumbai dated 16.5.2014 for Assessment Year 2009…

Rochem Separation Systems (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 10, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1661/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 Rochem Separation Systems Acit Cen Cir 10 (I) P. Ltd., 8Th Floor, Cgo Bldg. बनाम/ 101 Hdil Tower, Anant Annex, M. K. Marg, Vs. Kanekar Marg, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400050 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aabcr1955P Appellant By Shri S.C. Gupta (Ar) Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. Dr) Revenue By 04/10/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 19/10/2016

Section 132Section 153ASection 2(24)(iv)Section 271(1)(c)

…n record. It is settled law that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability and the revenue is not required to prove willful concealment as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case the of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textiles and Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277(SC). However, each and every addition made in the assessment cannot automatically lead to levy of penalty for concealment of income. A case for imposition of penalty has to be examined in terms of the provisions of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c). Secondly, it is also a settled legal 7 Rochem Separation Systems position that penalty proceedi…