Case Tribunal

Category: Tribunal; section: 271(1)(c) | itatonline.org http://itatonline.org/archives/?category_name=tribunal&judges=&secti...
itatonline.org
Only the latest & most important updates on taxation
Home Articles Asson News Blog Cause List Digest Feedback Forum
Gallery Info Judgements Legends Q&A Ask A Query On IDS/ DTDR
All Recent Judgements Supreme Court Judgements High Court Judgements Tribunal Judgements
AAR Rulings
Home Archive for Tribunal
Category: Tribunal
Archive for the Tribunal Category
Categories
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
Tags
Dr. Sarita Milind Davare vs.

ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
judges
sections
Posted on December 30, 2016 by editor 1 Comment
counsels
COURT: ITAT Mumbai

courts
CORAM: B. R. Baskaran (AM), Ram Lal Negi

(JM) catchwords
SECTION(S): 271(1)(c), 274 genre
GENRE: Domestic Tax

Reset
CATCH WORDS: concelment Penalty, furnishing
inaccurate particulars of income
COUNSEL: Vijay Kothari
1 of 16 05-01-2017 17:24
DATE: December 21, 2016 (Date of

pronouncement) itatonline.org
3.3K likes

publication)
AY: 2009-10
Be the first of your friends to like this
FILE: Click here to view full post with file
download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): The law in Dilip Shroff 291 ITR 519 (SC) & Newsletter
Kaushalya 216 ITR 660 (Bom) requires a show-cause
notice u/s 274 to be issued after due application of
mind. The non-specification in the notice as to whether
penalty is proposed for concealment or for furnishing of
inaccurate particulars reflects non-application of mind
and renders it void. The fact that the assessee
participated in the penalty proceedings does not save it
u/s 292B/292BB Recent Posts
CIT vs. Gulab
A combined reading of the decision rendered by Devi Memorial
Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. B Hospital Trust

(P&H High Court)
Kaushalya and Others (216 ITR 660) and the decision
Chalasani Naga
rendered by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ratna Kumari vs.
Dilip N Shroff (supra) would make it clear that there ITO (ITAT Vizag)
should be application of mind on the part of the AO at Utanka Roy vs.
the time of issuing notice. In the case of Lakhdir Lalji DIT (Calcutta
High Court)
(supra), the AO issued notice u/s 274 for
Qad Europe B.V.
concealment of particulars of income but levied vs. DDIT (ITAT
penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of Mumbai)
income. The Honble Gujarat High Court quashed the DCIT vs. M. K.
penalty since the basis for the penalty proceedings Enterprise (ITAT
Kolkata)
disappeared when it was held that there was no
suppression of income. The Honble Kerala High
Court has struck down the penalty imposed in the
case of N.N.Subramania Iyer Vs. Union of India
(supra), when there is no indication in the notice for Recent
what contravention the petitioner was called upon to Comments
show cause why a penalty should not be imposed. In Namit B on
2 of 16 05-01-2017 17:24
the instant case, the AO did not specify the charge for Utanka Roy vs.
DIT (Calcutta
which penalty proceedings were initiated and further
High Court)
he has issued a notice meant for calling the
adv. Dr.
assessee to furnish the return of income. Hence, in Balakrishnan
the instant case, the assessing officer did not specify Pandipeddhi on
the charge for which the penalty proceedings were DCIT vs. The
Saraswat
initiated and also issued an incorrect notice. Both the
Co-operative
acts of the AO, in our view, clearly show that the AO
Bank Limited
did not apply his mind when he issued notice to the (ITAT Mumbai)
assessee and he was not sure as to what purpose adv. Dr.
the notice was issued Balakrishnan
Pandipeddhi on
Dr. Sarita Milind
Read more
Davare vs. ACIT
(ITAT Mumbai)
Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal vswami on Y.V.
Nukala Ramakrishna Eluru

Ramana vs. CIT
(ITAT Vizag)
vs. DCIT (ITAT Vizag)

vswami on Y.V.
Ramana vs. CIT
(ITAT Vizag)
Posted on November 12, 2016 by editor 3 Comments
COURT: ITAT Vizag
Archives
CORAM: G. Manjunatha (AM), V. Durga Rao
(JM) January 2017 (5)
December
SECTION(S): 271(1)(c), 271AAA 2016 (24)
November
GENRE: Domestic Tax 2016 (15)
October
CATCH WORDS: concelment Penalty 2016 (15)
September
COUNSEL: C. Subrahmanyam 2016 (21)
August 2016 (25)
July 2016 (15)
DATE: September 16, 2016 (Date of
June 2016 (13)
pronouncement)
May 2016 (37)
April 2016 (45)
DATE: November 12, 2016 (Date of
March 2016 (36)
publication)
February
2016 (30)
AY: 2005-06 to 2008-09
January
2016 (20)
3 of 16 05-01-2017 17:24
December
2015 (11)
download link
November
2015 (37)
CITATION: October
2015 (31)
The pre-amended Explanation 5A to s. 271(1)(c) applies September
to non-filer assessees where a ROI is not filed before 2015 (27)
search and undisclosed income is not offered in the August 2015 (35)
ROI. The amended provision of Explanation 5A, which is July 2015 (43)
applicable to both filers and non-filers of returns, does June 2015 (29)
not apply to searches conducted pre 13.08.2009. May 2015 (28)
Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) to cases which are covered April 2015 (29)
by s. 271AAA is void March 2015 (43)
February
2015 (30)
The provisions of explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) January
as it stood as on the date of search or filing of the 2015 (38)
return u/s 153A of the Act, is important to reckon December
2014 (43)
whether the deeming fiction provided in the said
November
provisions is applicable or not. The pre-amended
2014 (58)
provisions of explanation 5A is applicable to a non October
filer assessees, where the assessees is not filed 2014 (93)
return of income before the search and also not September
2014 (14)
disclosed the undisclosed income in the return of
August 2014 (22)
income. The amended provision of explanation 5A,
July 2014 (24)
which is brought into the statute by the Finance Act June 2014 (24)
2009, (which was received ascent of President on May 2014 (19)
13.8.2009) is applicable to both filers and non-filers of April 2014 (20)
March 2014 (12)
returns. In the present case on hand, the law
February
applicable as on the date of search, which was
2014 (40)
pre-amended provisions of explanation 5A, as per January
which no penalty can be leviable, in case the 2014 (17)
assessee has filed return of income u/s 139(1) of the December
2013 (20)
Act before the date of search, whether or not
November
undisclosed income is disclosed in the said return.
2013 (15)
Admittedly in this case, the search is taken place on October
16.11.2007. The assessee has filed return of income 2013 (12)
u/s 1534 of the Act u/s 30.1.2009 September
2013 (13)
August 2013 (13)
Read more
July 2013 (10)
June 2013 (12)
Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal May 2013 (24)
4 of 16 05-01-2017 17:24
M. G. Contractors Pvt. Ltd April 2013 (27)
vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

March 2013 (13)
February
2013 (15)
Posted on October 8, 2016 by editor No Comments January
2013 (16)
December
COURT: ITAT Delhi 2012 (17)
November
CORAM: I. C. Sudhir (JM), Prashant Maharishi 2012 (13)
(AM) October
2012 (14)
SECTION(S): 271(1)(c) September
2012 (27)
GENRE: Domestic Tax August 2012 (33)
July 2012 (21)
CATCH WORDS: concealment of income, concelment June 2012 (17)
Penalty, furnishing inaccurate May 2012 (29)
particulars of income April 2012 (35)
March 2012 (31)
February
COUNSEL: Prakash Chand Yadav
2012 (24)
January
2012 (22)
pronouncement)
December
2011 (19)
DATE: October 8, 2016 (Date of publication)
November
2011 (25)
AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 October
2011 (13)
FILE: Click here to view full post with file September
download link 2011 (17)
August 2011 (13)
CITATION: July 2011 (21)
June 2011 (22)
S. 271(1)(c): Penalty cannot be imposed if the AO does May 2011 (19)
not specify whether the penalty is for "concealment of April 2011 (23)
income" or for "furnishing inaccurate particulars". March 2011 (28)
Penalty cannot be imposed in respect of income February
surrendered by the assessee if the AO does not link the 2011 (23)
income to incriminating documents January
2011 (21)
December
The income is offered by appellant on ad hoc basis 2010 (23)
without co-relating the amount of year wise November
2010 (12)
disclosure without any corroborating evidence. The
October
above disclosure has been accepted by assessing 2010 (17)
5 of 16 05-01-2017 17:24
officer without referring to any incriminating material September

2010 (10)
pertaining to respective years. The assessing officer
August 2010 (11)
as well as the 1st appellate authority has also not
July 2010 (14)
referred to any material based on which disclosure is June 2010 (10)
made and assessed by the assessing officer. In view May 2010 (16)
of this it is apparent that disclosure is without any April 2010 (8)
March 2010 (11)
material but merely on the statement of appellant. In
February
our view, there may be several reasons for making
2010 (11)
surrender by an assessee and merely on this basis January
an inference beyond doubt cannot be drawn that 2010 (12)
there was concealment of particulars of income or December
2009 (14)
furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof on the part of
November
the assessee towards the surrendered income to
2009 (12)
attract penal provisions under sec. 271(1)(c) of the October 2009 (9)
Act September
2009 (11)
Read more August 2009 (14)
July 2009 (13)
June 2009 (2)
Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal
May 2009 (7)
M. G. Contractors Pvt. Ltd

April 2009 (10)
March 2009 (14)
vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) February

2009 (11)
January
Posted on September 8, 2016 by editor No Comments 2009 (17)
December
2008 (12)
COURT: ITAT Mumbai
November
2008 (11)
CORAM: I. C. Sudhir (JM), Prashant
October
Maharishi (AM)
2008 (13)
September
SECTION(S): 271(1)(c) 2008 (22)
August 2008 (19)
GENRE: Domestic Tax July 2008 (9)
June 2008 (4)
CATCH WORDS: CIT (DR), Departmental May 2008 (9)
Representative April 2008 (12)
March 2008 (9)
COUNSEL: Prakash Chand Yadav February
2008 (19)
DATE: June 21, 2016 (Date of January
pronouncement) 2008 (13)
6 of 16 05-01-2017 17:24

publication) Advanced
Search
AY: 2006-07

Category
download link
CITATION:
Others (6)
As per CBDT Instruction No. 9/2013 dated 22.07.2013,
appeals against imposition of penalty or levy of interest Filter By
in which the aggregate of penalty imposed or interest Judges
levied by the AO is more than Rs. 3 crore in the cities of
Mumbai and Delhi are to be argued by the CIT(DR) and
matters other than this are to be argued by the Senior
DR
Filter By
Sections
As per CBDT Instruction No. 9/2013 dated
22.07.2013, appeals against imposition of penalty or
levy of interest in which the aggregate of penalty
10(10D) (1)
imposed or interest levied by the AO is more than Rs.
3 crore in the cities of Mumbai and Delhi are to be Filter By
argued by the CIT(DR) and matters other than this are Counsel
to be argued by the Senior DR
Read more

Filter By Court
Ajay Traders vs. DCIT

(ITAT Jaipur)
Filter By
Posted on June 2, 2016 by editor No Comments Catchwords
COURT: ITAT Jaipur
CORAM: Laliet Kumar (JM), T. R. Meena (AM)

Filter By
Genre
SECTION(S): 271(1)(c)
7 of 16 05-01-2017 17:24
GENRE: Domestic Tax
CATCH WORDS: concelment Penalty, surrender
Filter By Date
COUNSEL: Rajiv Sogani
DATE: May 6, 2016 (Date of

pronouncement)
DATE: June 2, 2016 (Date of publication)

Sort Results
By
AY: 2007-08

download link
CITATION:
Penalty under Explanation 5A to s. 271(1)(c) cannot be

levied on the basis of a mere surrender by the assessee
if no incriminating material has been found during
search. MAK Data 358 ITR 593 (SC) considered
It is undisputed fact that during the course of search,

no incriminating documents were found and seized.
The assessee surrendered the additional income
under section 132(4) at Rs. 15 lacs and requested not
to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The AO
imposed the penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A
to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been
confirmed by ld. CIT (A) by considering the judgment
of Honble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data
Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC). But for
imposing the penalty under Explanation 5A on the
basis of statement recorded during the course of
search, it is necessary to be found incriminating
documents and is to be considered at the time of
assessment framed under section 153A of the Act
Read more
8 of 16 05-01-2017 17:24
Ashwani Kumar Arora vs.

ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
Posted on May 28, 2016 by editor 1 Comment
COURT: ITAT Delhi
CORAM: Kuldip Singh (JM), N. K. Saini (AM)
SECTION(S): 271(1)(c), 271AAA
GENRE: domes
CATCH WORDS: concelment Penalty
COUNSEL: Salil Kapoor
DATE: May 19, 2016 (Date of

pronouncement)
DATE: May 28, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09

download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c) vs. 271AAA: Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

on income disclosed in a search instead of u/s 271AAA
is not sustainable
The penalty in this case, if at all leviable, it should

have been levied under section 271AAA (1) and not
u/s 271(1)(c) as has categorically been provided in
sub-section (3) of section 271AAA. Intention of the
legislative in incorporating the provisions contained
u/s 271AA effective during the period 1st June, 2007
to 1st July, 2012 is to provide general amnesty in
search and seizure cases, and the case of the
assessee undisputedly falls u/s 271AAA and cannot
9 of 16 05-01-2017 17:24
be dealt with u/s 271(1)(c) by any stretch of

imagination even
Read more
Oxford Softech P.Ltd vs.

ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Posted on April 22, 2016 by editor 1 Comment
COURT: ITAT Delhi
CORAM: Beena Pillai (JM), Sudhakar Reddy

(AM)
GENRE: Domestic Tax
CATCH WORDS: concelment Penalty, furnishing

inaccurate particulars of income
COUNSEL: Salil Kapoor
DATE: April 7, 2016 (Date of

pronouncement)
DATE: April 22, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05

download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Income-tax provisions are highly

complicated and it is difficult for a layman to understand
the same. Even seasoned tax professionals have
difficulty in comprehending these provisions. Making a
claim for deduction u/s S.80 IA which has numerous
10 of 16 05-01-2017 17:24
conditions is a complicated affair & cannot attract

penalty
The provisions under the Income Tax Act are highly

complicated and its different for a layman to
understand the same. Even seasoned tax
professionals have difficulty in comprehending these
provisions. Making a claim for deduction under the
provisions of S.80 IA of the Act which has numerous
The provisions under the Income Tax Act are highly
complicated and its different for a layman to
understand the same. Even seasoned tax
professionals have difficulty in comprehending these
provisions. Making a claim for deduction under the
provisions of S.80 IA of the Act which has numerous
conditions attached, is a complicated affair. It is
another matter that the assessing authorities have
found that the claim is not admissible. Under these
circumstances we hold that it cannot be said that this
is a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of
income
Read more
Sanghavi Savla
Commodity Brokers Pvt
Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT
Mumbai)
Posted on April 5, 2016 by itatbar No Comments
COURT: ITAT Mumbai
CORAM: Amit Shukla (JM), Jason P. Boaz (AM)
SECTION(S): 271(1)(c), 274
11 of 16 05-01-2017 17:24
GENRE: Domestic Tax
CATCH WORDS: concealment of income, furnishing

inaccurate particulars of income,
penalty
COUNSEL: Sunil M. Lala

pronouncement)
DATE: April 5, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08

download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): If show-cause notice does not delete

inappropriate words whereby it was not clear as to
whether the default is concealing particulars of income
or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, the
levy of penalty is invalid
The Tribunal quashed penalty proceedings initiated

u/s 271(1)(c) for AY 2007-08 as penalty show cause
notice failed to specify default committed by
assessee i.e. the AO did not delete inappropriate
words / parts whereby it was not clear as to the
default committed by assessee was for concealing
particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate
particulars of income
Read more
B. L. International vs. ACIT

(ITAT Delhi)
12 of 16 05-01-2017 17:24
Posted on March 31, 2016 by CA. Pinky Kapoor No Comments
COURT: ITAT Delhi
CORAM: S. V. Mehrotra (AM), Sudhanshu

Srivastava (JM)
GENRE: Domestic Tax
CATCH concealment of income, furnishing

WORDS: inaccurate particulars of income, penalty
COUNSEL: Rajesh Arora
DATE: March 3, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 31, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10

download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): No penalty leviable on bonafide human

error committed while filing return of income
When the assessee was confronted with the

depreciation being claimed on the property, the
income from which had been returned under the head
income from house property, it immediately realized
its mistake of computation of total income and agreed
for the addition to its total income. The mistake was
inadvertent, is evident from the fact that assessee
had furnished return of income of Rs. 3,27,79,273/-
and, therefore, there was no reason to make a false
claim of a petty sum of Rs. 7,87,734/-
Read more
13 of 16 05-01-2017 17:24
Mangalam Drugs &

Organics Ltd vs. DCIT
(ITAT Mumbai)
Posted on February 23, 2016 by editor No Comments
COURT: ITAT Mumbai
CORAM: Ashwani Taneja (AM), Joginder Singh

(JM)
GENRE: Domestic Tax
CATCH WORDS: concealment of income, furnishing

inaccurate particulars of income,
penalty
COUNSEL: M. Subramanian

pronouncement)
DATE: February 23, 2016 (Date of

publication)
AY: 2004-05

download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Penalty cannot be levied on all issues in a

"wholesale" manner. The AO has to give findings for
each issue separately. He has to apply mind
meticulously and carefully for each issue separately and
establish precisely whether there was concealment of
income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of
income. The Assessee cannot be fastened with the
14 of 16 05-01-2017 17:24
liability of penalty without there being a clear or specific

charge. Fixing a charge in a vague and casual manner
is not permitted under the law. Fixing twin charges is
also not permitted under the law
It is further noted, from the perusal of penalty order,

that the penalty has been levied, on all the
additions/disallowances, in a whole sale manner.
The AO has not given his findings, for levying the
penalty, for each issue separately, with respect to the
satisfaction of the AO for each of the issue
respectively, nor has he given a finding for each issue
separately as to whether there was a concealment of
income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of
income. The AO has held in the penalty order that
various disallowance made by the AO have been
confirmed by the Ld CIT(A) and therefore, it is
automatically established that the assessee has
concealed its income and furnished inaccurate
particulars, which has led into concealment of
income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the
Act. In our considered view, this approach of the AO
for levy of penalty is not correct as per law. Penal
provisions are quite harsh, these can make the
assessee liable for prosecution, as well. Therefore,
the AO is obliged, under the law, to make application
of his mind meticulously and carefully for each issue
separately and to show and establish precisely and
specifically whether there was concealment of
income or there was furnishing of inaccurate
particulars of income on the part of the assessee, at
the stage of filing of return of income. The Assessee
cannot be fastened with the liability of penalty without
there being a clear or specific charge. Fixing a charge
in a vague and casual manner is not permitted under
the law. Fixing the twin charges is also not permitted
under the law. We drive support from the judgment of
Honble Gujrat High Court in the case of New
Sorathia Engineering Co vs CIT 282 ITR 642 (Guj)
15 of 16 05-01-2017 17:24
Read more
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
2017 Default copyright text
16 of 16 05-01-2017 17:24

Case Tribunal

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case Tribunal

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Category: Tribunal; section: 271(1)(c) | itatonline.org http://itatonline.org/archives/?category_name=tribunal&judges=&secti...

Gallery Info Judgements Legends Q&A Ask A Query On IDS/ DTDR

Home Archive for Tribunal

Archive for the Tribunal Category

Dr. Sarita Milind Davare vs.

COURT: ITAT Mumbai

CORAM: B. R. Baskaran (AM), Ram Lal Negi

SECTION(S): 271(1)(c), 274 genre

GENRE: Domestic Tax

COUNSEL: Vijay Kothari

DATE: December 21, 2016 (Date of

DATE: December 30, 2016 (Date of

Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. B Hospital Trust

Nukala Ramakrishna Eluru

vs. DCIT (ITAT Vizag)

COURT: ITAT Vizag

M. G. Contractors Pvt. Ltd April 2013 (27)

vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

officer without referring to any incriminating material September

M. G. Contractors Pvt. Ltd

vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) February

DATE: September 8, 2016 (Date of

FILE: Click here to view full post with file

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

Ajay Traders vs. DCIT

COURT: ITAT Jaipur

CORAM: Laliet Kumar (JM), T. R. Meena (AM)

GENRE: Domestic Tax

CATCH WORDS: concelment Penalty, surrender

DATE: May 6, 2016 (Date of

DATE: June 2, 2016 (Date of publication)

FILE: Click here to view full post with file

Penalty under Explanation 5A to s. 271(1)(c) cannot be

It is undisputed fact that during the course of search,

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

Ashwani Kumar Arora vs.

COURT: ITAT Delhi

CORAM: Kuldip Singh (JM), N. K. Saini (AM)

SECTION(S): 271(1)(c), 271AAA

CATCH WORDS: concelment Penalty

COUNSEL: Salil Kapoor

DATE: May 19, 2016 (Date of

DATE: May 28, 2016 (Date of publication)

FILE: Click here to view full post with file

S. 271(1)(c) vs. 271AAA: Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

The penalty in this case, if at all leviable, it should

be dealt with u/s 271(1)(c) by any stretch of

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

Oxford Softech P.Ltd vs.

COURT: ITAT Delhi

CORAM: Beena Pillai (JM), Sudhakar Reddy

GENRE: Domestic Tax

CATCH WORDS: concelment Penalty, furnishing

COUNSEL: Salil Kapoor

DATE: April 7, 2016 (Date of

DATE: April 22, 2016 (Date of publication)

FILE: Click here to view full post with file

S. 271(1)(c): Income-tax provisions are highly

conditions is a complicated affair & cannot attract

The provisions under the Income Tax Act are highly

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

COURT: ITAT Mumbai

CORAM: Amit Shukla (JM), Jason P. Boaz (AM)

SECTION(S): 271(1)(c), 274