Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › Fortune Polymers Industries Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

Fortune Polymers Industries Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 16, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 19, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 1997-98
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Penalty cannot be levied for an assessment made in a cursory & summary manner

A perusal of the assessment order demonstrates that it has been passed in a cursory and summary manner, de hors of any detail, except for mentioning that certain figures had not tallied, no analysis whatsoever or reasons leading to the disallowance, are given by the AO. AO simply says that the assessee has filed reply explaining the discrepancies but does not give any reason as to why the explanation cannot be accepted. Nowhere in the penalty order the charge on which penalty is being levied has been specified. Such an assessment, in our view cannot be a basis for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(C) (New Holland Tractors India (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT & CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory followed)

Related Posts:

  • Prafful Industries (P) Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The expression "has concealed the particulars of income" and "has furnished inaccurate particulars of income" have not been defined either in sec. 271(l)(c) or elsewhere in the Act. One thing is certain that these two circumstances are not identical in details although they may lead to same effect, namely, keeping…
  • DCIT vs. Inventaa Industries Private Limited (ITAT Hyderabad Special Bench) It is clear that we cannot restrict the word “product” to ‘plants’, ‘fruits’, ‘vegetables’ or such botanical life only. The only condition is that the “product” in question should be raised on the land by performing some basic operations. Mushroom produced by the assessee is a product. This product is…
  • ACIT vs. Karam Chand Rubber Industries (ITAT Delhi) It is an admitted fact that during the course of search nothing adverse was found from the premises of the assessee regarding the purchases made from the four parties concerned. Only during post search enquiry it was found that those four parties are not available at the given address. However,…
  • Alok Textile Industries Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) We note that the prohibition in Second Proviso to Section 158BC(a) of the Act of filing a revised return of income before the Assessing Officer would not prohibit a Assessee from raising the additional claim before Appellate Authorities as held by this Court in Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders P. Ltd.…
  • CIT vs. Sudev Industries Limited (Delhi High Court) A company being a juristic and a legal person, service cannot be in person on the Company, and has to be affected by sending the notice to the registered office or at the place of business. In the context of the present case, we would only observe that the object…
  • JDC Traders Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) If we accept the argument of the learned DR that u/s 154 of the Act, ld. AO is empowered to deal with the escapement of income in respect of which the reasons were not recorded even after the assessment reopened under section 147 of the Act is completed, it would…

Related Judgements

  1. DCIT vs. Nepa Limited (ITAT Indore) 

    (i) It is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to state whether penalty was being levied for concealment of particulars of income by the assessee or whether any inaccurate particulars of income had been furnished by the assessee. There are two … DCIT vs. Nepa Limited (ITAT Indore) Read…
  2. ACIT vs. Crescent Property Developers (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Though the assessee offered a sum of Rs. 1 crore during the survey on account of discrepencies, errors and omissions in the accounts, at the stage of the assessment, there is no reference to any incriminating material found during the … ACIT vs. Crescent Property Developers (ITAT Mumbai)…
  3. ACIT vs. Sunland Metal Recycling (ITAT Mumbai) 

    The Assessing Officer has not given any finding that the sale consideration disclosed by the assessee is not actual amount received as per the agreement of sale. The addition was made by invoking the deeming provisions of section 50C whereby the full value of consideration was adopted as per…
  4. Poysha Goyal vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) 

    The addition by way of disallowing the depreciation claimed has rightly been made in the quantum proceedings which fact has been accepted by the assessee by filing a revised return and not agitating the issue further. Considering the explanation offered … Poysha Goyal vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Read…
  5. G. K. Properties Pvt. Limited vs. ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) 

    As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Khode Easwar 83 ITR 369 the penalty proceedings being penal in character, the Revenue itself has to establish that the receipt of the amount undisputedly constitute income of … G. K. Properties Pvt. Limited vs. ITO…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*