Note on Penalty

Kapil Goel Advocate (9910272806), E-Mail:

S.no. / Name of Case / Forum / Date of order & Appeal no. / Ratio in Brief
1. / Shri Neeraj Jindal / Hon’ble Delhi High Court / Order dated 09.02.2017, ITA no. 463/2016 / Conscious concealment is must
& Incriminating material in search is must fasten any penal liability
2. / Poonam Jain / Hon’ble Delhi High Court / Order dated 08.05.2017, WP(C) 3732/2017 / Where show cause for prosecution u/s 279 is held to be must, it is held that all material and statements must be provided along with show cause notice itself as per natural justice
3. / MaheshWood / Hon’ble Delhi High Court / Order dated 05.05.2017, ITA no. 786/2016 / For time limitation u/s 275 vis a vis penalty u/s 271D etc, held reference date shall be assessment order date where penalty are initiated
4. / Chintels India Ltd. / Hon’ble Delhi ITAT / Orderdated 31.03.2017, ITA no. 3791/2016 / Held
For imposing penalty, vital difference between facts not proved and fact disproved must be kept in mind
5. / K.N. Shaikh / Hon’ble Bombay High Court / Order dated 20.03.2017, ITA no. 421/2014 / Year wise incriminating material must to extrapolate the income particularly for penalty proceedings
6. / Hotel Samrat Bar & restaurant / Hon’ble Bombay High Court / Order dated 17.03.2017, ITA no. 10/2001 / Income pertains to which year is crucial for penalty imposition
7. / M/s Juhu Construction Co. / Hon’ble Bombay High Court / Order dated 20.03.2017, ITA no. 1679/2014 / Assessee could not forecast result of appeal at ITAT when returns with less income was filed earlier vis a vis penalty imposition
8. / Samson Maritime Ltd. / Hon’ble Bombay High Court / Order dated 09.03.2017, ITA no. 1718/2014 / Rev Fav decision SC Mak Data applied and PWC 348 ITR 306 distinguished on peculiar facts
9. / M/s Advaita Estate Development Pvt. Ltd. / Hon’ble Bombay High Court / Order dated 17.02.2017, ITA no. 1498/2014 / Applying 368 ITR 722 once substantial question of law is admitted, matter becomes debatable and penalty cant be levied
10. / Shri CP Gangadhareshwara / Hon’ble Karnataka High Court / Order dated 04.01.2017, Criminal Petiton no. 1999/2016 / Held section 276CC prosecution is bad because assessee has filed the return which is accepted and assessments are carried out (also observed that returns filed belatedly or otherwise section does not apply)
11. / Smt. Anita Kumaran / Hon’ble Madras High Court / Order dated 01.03.2017, Tax case (appeal) no. 139-141/2017 / SC Mak data 358 ITR 593 explained at para 12.1,12.2
12. / Sharda Tukaram Bhor & Mr. Tukaram Mahadev Bhor / Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT / Order dated 20.01.2017, ITA no. 1871/2014 / From para 6 onwards is highlighted in detail:
a)Fact not proved vs disproved;
b)Relevance of enquiry on assessee’s disclosure to impose penalty
c)Inquiry cannot be closed at threshhold
13. / M/s DD Resorts Pvt. Ltd. / Hon’ble Delhi High Court / Order dated 21.03.2017, ITA 943/2016 / Held it is doubtful that section 271AAA applies to sec.153C type cases
14. / M/s Creative Travels Pvt. Ltd. / Tis Hazari Court, Delhi / Order dated 31.08.2016, Criminal Revision no. 10/2016 / For attracting offence u/s 277 it is must that falsity is there in account/statement related to ITR and not otherwise
15. / M/s Selva Gold Covering Pvt. Ltd. / Hon’ble Chennai ITAT / Order dated 29.03.2017, ITA no. 3262/Mds/2016 / Post survey income hitherto unassessed offered in valid revised return u/s 139(5) held penalty not leviable
16. / Ajay Gupta / Hon’ble Allahabad High Court / Order dated 23.03.2017, Misc. bench.no. 2838/2007 / When substantial penalty order is quashed and maintained for petty amount, in view of changed circumstances, approval for prosecution cannot sustain, writ allowed
17. / Fortune Technocomps (P) Ltd. / Hon’ble Delhi High Court / Order dated 1305.2016, ITA 313/2016 / Relying on 116 ITR 416 held when asst. order is altered in significant way by CIT-A penalty proceedings initiation become non existent

1 | Page