CIT v. Kaushalya

Hakimmudin Mansoorali Plasticwala, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Hakimmuddin Mansoorali Plasticwala Ito-13(1)3) Shop No. 14/C, Ground Floor Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Aradhana Building M.K.Road, Churchgate Dhobi Street, Masjid Bunder Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 003 Pan:Aaacpp1052B (Assessee) (Revenue)

…e decision of the Tribunal holding levy of penalty in such circumstances being bad, has been approved. 11. Apart from the aforesaid, the ld. CIT-DR made an argument based on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya & Others, 216 ITR 660 (Bom.) to canvass support for his plea that non- striking off of the irrelevant portion of notice would not invalidate the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have carefully considered the said argument set-up by the ld. CIT-DR and find that a similar issue had come up before our coordinate Bench in the case of Dr. Sarita Milind Da…

Confluence Project Management Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…ural one which envisages nothing more than giving of reasonable opportunity of being heard and therefore ticking of the ground in the notice was not essential. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushalya 216 ITR 660. In this background, the impugned penalty was confirmed on legal grounds as well as on merits. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 5. The Ld. Authorised Representative for assessee [AR] assailed the penalty proceedings on legal grounds by drawing our attention to the following judicial pronouncements. No. Case Law Judicial Aut…

Pacific Organics P.Ltd, Ambernath vs. JCIT RG 1, Kalyan

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Pacific Organics Pvt. Ltd., The Jcit, Range-1, Plot No. N4, Additional Ambernath 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza Midc, Anand Nagar, Wayle Nagar, Khandakpara, Ambernath (E), 421506 Vs. Kalyan (West) Pan: Aabcp8168Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bharat Kumar (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Abi Rama Kartikyan (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 26/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2019

…d. A.O. had not struck off relevant limb of Penalty in the notice issue u/s 274 of the Act, on 05/02/2014. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in placing reliance on the case of CIT V/s. Smt. Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) which is not applicable to the facts of the case. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in placing reliance on the case of Earth Moving Equipment Service Corporation V/s. DCIT in ITA No. 6617/M/2017 which was not speaking order and the Ld. CIT (A) had not discussed the case Laws, including ju…

Arun Ravindranath Sawhney, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7192/Mum/2016 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2007-08) Arun Ravindranath Sawhney The Dy. Commissioner Of 502, Daisylea Apartment, 17- Income Tax, Central Circle A Mount Pleasant Road, 3(4), Old Acit Central Vs. Mumbai-400 006 Circle 24& 26 Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aafps4688F

…facts which would warrant our taking a view different from the Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra). 22. The learned CIT DR, also relied on the decision of Hon’ble High court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalaya 216 ITR 660 (Bom). We noted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N Shroff v. CIT 291 ITR 519 (SC) has considered this issue and observed as under: - “83. It is of some significance that in the standard proforma used by the Assessing Officer in issuing a notice despite the fact that the same postulates that 35 inappropriate words and paragraphs we…

Mutha Parasram Dhanaji & Co, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

…, therefore, merely for the reason non-striking of inapplicable portion of notice, the whole penalty proceedings cannot be vitiated. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Smt. Kaushalya & Ors. (1995) (216 ITR 660) (Bom). 11. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is a civil liability which is based on the show-cause notice issued by the AO u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) before taking up the proceedings for levy of penalty. The AO shal…

Mutha Parasram Dhanaji & Co, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

…, therefore, merely for the reason non-striking of inapplicable portion of notice, the whole penalty proceedings cannot be vitiated. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Smt. Kaushalya & Ors. (1995) (216 ITR 660) (Bom). 11. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is a civil liability which is based on the show-cause notice issued by the AO u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) before taking up the proceedings for levy of penalty. The AO shal…

Mutha Parasram Dhanaji & Co, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

…, therefore, merely for the reason non-striking of inapplicable portion of notice, the whole penalty proceedings cannot be vitiated. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Smt. Kaushalya & Ors. (1995) (216 ITR 660) (Bom). 11. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is a civil liability which is based on the show-cause notice issued by the AO u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) before taking up the proceedings for levy of penalty. The AO shal…

Surinco Workwear P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1290/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 बिाम/ M/S. Surinco Workwear Ito 8(3)(2) Private Ltd., R.No. 412, 36, Marol Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Mumbai 400021 M. Vasanji Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs5694K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Ms. Heena Sheth Revenue By: Shri. O.P Meena (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1290/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 01.11.2016 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-18/It-126/Ito-8(3)(2)/14-15, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-18, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Penalty Order Dated 28.03.2014 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2009- 10. I.T.A. No.1290/Mum/2017

…de order dated 02.05.2017. The learned DR also relied upon decision in the case of Dhaval K. Jain v. ITO in ITA no. 996/Mum/2014 for AY 2003-04 . The learned DR also relied upon decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom). On merits it was submitted that no balance confirmation was submitted by the assessee from M/s Alok Textile Traders and hence additions were made u/s. 41(1) of the 1961 on the ground that this creditor is not genuine. On second issue. It was submitted by learned DR that assessee has wrongly declared rent received from property taken on lea…

Sahakar Developers, Mumbai vs. ACIT 25(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

…decision of the Tribunal holding levy of penalty in such circumstances being bad, has been approved. 11. Apart from the aforesaid, the ld. CIT-DR made an argument based on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya & Others, 216 ITR 660 (Bom.) to canvass support for his plea that non-striking off of the irrelevant portion of notice would not invalidate the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have carefully considered the said argument set-up by the ld. CIT-DR and find that a similar issue had come up before our coordinate Bench in the case of Dr. Sarita Milind Dav…