Forum
Read and express views
× Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India

These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.

05-09-2019, Barnala Steel Industries, Section 158BI, 271(l)(c), Tribunal Delhi

  • amit
  • amit's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
More
1 week 2 days ago #10714 by amit
Section - 158BI, 271(l)(c), 153A, 148, 153C
Order Date - 05-09-2019
Favouring - Assessee
Court - Tribunal Delhi
Appellant - Barnala Steel Industries Ltd.
Respondent - ACIT
Justice - N.K. BILLAIYA AM & SUCHITRA KAMBLE JM
Citation - 919Taxpundit44
Appeal No. - ITA Nos.3201/Del/201
Asstt. Year - 2006-07

Order

PER : SUCHITRA KAMBLE

These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of the CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar, dated 29.03.2011 and 23.09.2013 for Assessment Year 2006-07.

2. Grounds of appeal of ITA No.3201/Del/2011 are as under:-

i. That the notice issued by the AO U/s 153A (a) r.w.s 153C dt 01.08.2008 and assessment order passed U/s 153A are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction hence the assessment order passed u/s 153A dt 31.12.2009 is liable to be quashed.

ii. That the Block Assessment order passed by the AO for AYs 2002-03 to 2.007-08 is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction as there is no power / authority to pass Block Assessment after 31.05.2003 as provided in the provisions of section 158BI.

iii. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law in making the addition/disallowance without there being any incriminating material found during the proceedings U/s 132A and the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the same. Hence, the addition/disallowances made are bad in law, without jurisdiction and not within the scope of provisions of sec 153C.

iv. That no notice U/s 143(2) has been issued within the prescribed the period hence the Assessment order passed U/s 153A and the additions made in the said assessment order are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed / deleted.

v. That the impugned Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer is against the principles of natural justice and the same has been passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard.

vi. That CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in upholding the addition of Rs. 75,00,00.00 on account of short term capital gain and reject the submissions of the appellant solely on the basis of remand report submitted by the AO. The CIT(A) has failed to take into consideration relevant evidences put before him and ignored circumstances of the case.

vii. That the evidence and explanation given by the appellant and the material available on record ha e not been properly considered and judiciously interpreted and instead solely relied on remand report of AO

viii. That the additions have been made on basis of mere surmises and conjectures and contrary to facts and evidence on record and cannot be justified by any material on record. The addition made is unjust, unlawful and is h ghly excessive.

ix. That the interests I I/s 234B and 234C have been wrongly and illegally charged. The appellant has not committed any default of payment of Advance tax as it could not have anticipated such additions while estimating the current income.

x. That the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in non-quashing of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1 )(c) which is wrongly initiated by the AO.

3. Grounds of appeal of ITA No.6783/Del/2011are as under:-

i. That, the notice issued u/s 271 (1) (c) and order imposing penalty of Rs.25,24,500.00 under said section are illegal, bad in law, and without jurisdiction.

ii. That, the A O has failed to appreciate that no satisfaction was recorded before initiation of penalty proceedings U/s 271 (l)(c) and as such the notice issued U/s 271 (l)(c) and the penalty order passed under said section are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed as there is no power/authority to pass block assessment after 31.05.2003 as provided in the provision of section 158 BI.

iii. That, the A O has erred in view of the facts and circumstance of the case and in law in not specifying the charge against the assessee for which the penalty has been levied against the assessee. The CIT (A) erred in upholding the same.

iv. That in view of the facts and circumstance of the case the A O has erred in law and on facts in imposing the penalty of Rs.25,24,500.00 U/s 271 (1) (c). The CIT (A) has erred the upholding the same.

v. That, the A O, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case erred in levying penalty on the ground of addition on account of Short Term Capital Gain at Rs. 1,04,38,715.00 and reject the explanation given by the appellant merely on surmises and conjectures. The addition made is debatable and cannot be treated as concealed income. The CIT (A) erred in upholding the same.

vi. That, the A O, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law failed to appreciate the fact, that, the explanation filed/given by the assessee is bonafide.

vii. That the information filed and the material available on record are not properly considered and judicially interpreted. The penalty levied by the A O are unjust, arbitrary are against the facts of the case and are not justified by any material on record.

viii. The addition/disallowance has been made merely on the basis of rejection of explanation of the appellant and no material has been brought on record by the AO in support of said addition / di allowance hence no penalty U/s 271 (1 )(c) could be levied on the basis of such a disallowance.

ix. That, the submissions filed have not been considered judicially. The impugned order is passed without any application of mind.

4. The assessee is limited company deriving income from manufacturing of M.S. Bar, Tor and TMT. Return declaring income of Rs.55,53,620/- was filed on 29/11/2009. On the basis of information that an amount of Rs.92,55,000/- was seized by S.H.O. Kairana from possession of one Shri Naveen Chand Jain. The CIT, Muzaffarnagar issued warrant u/s 132A for requisition of amount in possession of S.H.O. Kairana. In the statement recorded by the police, the aforesaid person deposed that the impugned sum belonged to M/s Barnalal Steel Industries Ltd. The amount of Rs.92,55,000/- was requisitioned u/s 132A of the Act from S.H.O. Kairana on 15/02/2008. The seized money could not be explained by the assessee. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 153A of the Act on 26/03/2008 requiring the assessee to file the return of income falling within six assessment years as referred to in clause (b) of Section 153A of the Act. A survey u/s 133A was conducted on the business premises of the assessee on 28/03/2008. At the time of survey, excess stock of raw material and finished goods were found to be short by 1.37 crores approximately. In response, the assessee submitted that the returns of income originally filed may be treated as filed in compliance of the notice u/s 153A of the Act. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish copies of income tax assessment orders for all the assessment years, copy of bank accounts, wealth tax returns and the details of unsecured loans. In response, the assessee submitted that it was assessed to tax

Click to view and download Full Free Judgement of Barnala Steel Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT

Unable to display Google Map.




Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.109 seconds

If You Appreciate What We Do Here On TaxPundit, You Should Consider:

We are thankful for your never ending support.

Latest Analysis - High Courts

PCIT vs. Sahara States Gorakhpur

PCIT vs. Sahara States Gorakhpur

PCIT vs. Sahara States Gorakhpur Read More
GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT Read More
Jugender Singh Yadav vs. PCIT

Jugender Singh Yadav vs. PCIT

Jugender Singh Yadav vs. PCIT Read More
ROHIT KUMAR GUPTA vs PCIT

ROHIT KUMAR GUPTA vs PCIT

ROHIT KUMAR GUPTA vs PCIT Read More
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41

Forum Features

Latest Case Laws
Latest Case Laws are instantly updated in the Forum into their respective section
Latest from CBDT
Latest Circulars, Notifications, Orders etc. from CBDT is updated in the Forum
Ask Experts
You can ask questions to the community
Support
Support queries are either replied via mail or in the Forum so that others can be benefited
Press Releases
Latest Press Notes and Press Releases are updated in the Forum
Connect with Members
You can connect with our community members by replying to their queries

Recommended Articles

 

SITE INFORMATION

All content herein is the copyright of Taxpundit. No images, text, or any other content may be, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of Taxpundit.

All Rights Reserved. All Content Copyright.

Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest developments and special offers!

Company Master Data Since 1900. More than 1.75 Million Records. Register/Login to get FREE access. Read more
Toggle Bar