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.

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 (306 ITR 277)

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.

The Mannarkkad Rural Service Co Operative Bank Ltd., Mannarkkad vs. Income Tax Officer, Palakkad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal and stay application are dismissed

ITA 871/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Sivadas Chettoor, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44ASection 80P

…on in Hindustan Steel Ltd. (supra) is premised on the consideration that penalty, which in that case was under the Sale Tax Act, is a result of quasi criminal proceedings. The Hon'ble Apex Court per it’s decision in UoI v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC) has clarified the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act to be a civil liability. The same would hold equally for penalty u/s.271B, which is though subject to s. 273B. 5. In view of the foregoing, we confirm the levy of the impugned penalty. We having decided the appeal, the assessee’s stay application becomes infructuous. We decide acco…

Sri Harikuttan T, Kayamkulam vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Alleppey

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

ITA 885/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Harikuttan T. The Income Tax Officer (2) 1, Edayilaveetil Tharayil Aayakar Bhavan Njakkanal P.O., Pathiyoor Vs. Alappuzha Co0Llectorate Kayalmulam 690533 Alappuzha 688011 [Pan:Alrpt7536J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:03.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By Assessee Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Vide Order Dated 17/02/2022, By The First Appellate Authority, Being The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nfac [Cit(A)] Vide It’S Order Dated 06.07.2022. 2.1 The Brief Background Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Retired Defence Personnel, Is A Registered Money Lender Under The Kerala Money Lenders Act (Kml Act), Lending Money On Interest Against Mortgage Of Loan. For The Relevant Year He Returned, Besides Pension, Income From This Business At Rs.2,05,691. On Verification, It Was Found By The Assessing Officer (Ao) That The Assessee Was Maintaining Six Bank Accounts, I.E., Three Each With Two Banks, Being South Indian Bank (Sib) & State Bank Of India (Sbi). Transactions With The Former Were Undisclosed. The Reason Explained Was That The Gold Pawned By His Customers With Him For Availing Loan, Was In Turn Mortgaged With This Bank To Source Funds For Further Lending. These

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 270ASection 274Section 37(1)

…losure of a part of his money lending business, which has led to assessment being at a sum higher than that returned. Even as wilful default is not ITANo. 885/Coch/2022 (AY: 2017-18) Harikuttan T. vs. ITO necessary (UoI v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC)), in the instant case it is so. The disallowance u/s. 37(1) is again only toward computing the income of such business as per the provisions of the Act; it being trite that it is only the real income, subject to the provisions of the Act, which is to be assessed [Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 521 (SC)]. The assessee’s…

Vivaan Infotel Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 26(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5549/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 217(1)(c)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…ases so made makes it a case, fit to be called as concealment of income, thereby making it eligible for the levy of penalty under Sec 271(1)(c). 5.7 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and other Vs Dharmendra Textiles Processors and others 306 ITR 277 has held that the 'mens rea' need not be established before imposition of penalty u/s 271(1) of the IT Act, 1961. "The explanation appended to section 271(1)D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, indicate the element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing the return. The object behind the ena…

Yoonus Kadavath Peedikayil, Kannur vs. ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Kannur

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 913/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasyoonus Kadavath Peedikayil The Income Tax Officer M/S. Modern Enterprises Ward – 1 & Tps Kakkad Road Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Kannur 670005 Kannothumchal [Pan:Ccwpk6415P] Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

…the prescription that the penalty order should finally convey the default is again on the basis of it being a quasi-criminal levy, which is not the case as clarified by the larger bench decision by the Apex Court in Dharmendra Textile Processors v. UoI [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC). There should though, without doubt, be a finding/s in the order to the effect that the elements of Explanation 1 (i.e., where the same stands applied), so that there is a statutory presumption as to deemed concealment, are satisfied. We are in agreement with the AO that the assessee’s accounts for the earlier years having been subject to au…

ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Mahender Kumar Agarwal, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 370/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 370/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Asst. Commissioner of Vs. Sri Mahender Kumar Agarwal, Income Tax, Hyderabad Central Circle-1(2), [PAN No. ABQPA4124J] Hyderabad अपीलार्थीर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee by: Shri K.C. Devdas, AR राजस्‍वजस्‍व द्वारा / Revenue by: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR सुनवाई की तारीख रीख/Date of hearing: 19/07/2023 घोषणा की त…

M.Karthikeyan, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 1(4), Chennai

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

ITA 1980/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं "ी मंजुनाथ. जी, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA.G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 1980/CHNY/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri M. Karthikeyan, The Income Tax Officer, Old No.15, New No.7, vs. Non-Corporate Ward – 1(4), Demonte Street, Chennai – 34. Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. PAN: AYWPK 0661P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Add…