CIT v. Kaushalya

216 ITR 660High Court1995#131 most cited

What is CIT v. Kaushalya authority for?

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not invalidated by the Assessing Officer's failure to strike off irrelevant portions in the show cause notice, provided the assessee understood the exact charge and suffered no prejudice, indicating an application of mind by the AO.

511

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Kaushalya · 216 ITR 660 · Section 271(1)(c) penalty · penalty notice validity · non-striking off irrelevant portion · application of mind · prejudice to assessee · concealment of income · inaccurate particulars · Section 274

Sections most often in play

Section 274Section 271(1)(c)Section 139(1)Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271AAB

Issues it is cited on

section 274furnishing inaccurate particularsfurnishing inaccurate particulars of incomepenalty u/s 271(1)(c)concealment of incomenon-application of mindlevy of penaltysection 271(1)section 271section 271(1)(c)section 27opportunity of being heard

Judgments citing CIT v. Kaushalya

Shri Raghav Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 959/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.957 To 959/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2008-09 Shri Raghav Reddy, The Income Tax Officer, Om Shakthy Tower-2, Non-Corporate Ward-2(3), No.Ts 64, Chennai. Sidco Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aafpr 6559 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T. Ramesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Vikneswaran, JCIT
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…t upheld the view of the division bench order in the case of PCIT Vs. Goa Dourado Promotions (P.) Ltd. (Tax Appeal No.18 of 2019, dated 26.11.2019) and held that the contrary view taken by another division bench in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) does not lay down the correct proposition of law. 6. As noted earlier, we find that the penalty notice dated 26.02.2014 & 23.12.2011 didn’t explicitly convey to the assessee the specific fault/charge the assessee was being proceeded against for levy of penalty. Resultantly, the show cause notice is found to be defective/invalid, and the…

Shri Raghav Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 958/CHNY/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.957 To 959/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2008-09 Shri Raghav Reddy, The Income Tax Officer, Om Shakthy Tower-2, Non-Corporate Ward-2(3), No.Ts 64, Chennai. Sidco Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aafpr 6559 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T. Ramesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Vikneswaran, JCIT
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…t upheld the view of the division bench order in the case of PCIT Vs. Goa Dourado Promotions (P.) Ltd. (Tax Appeal No.18 of 2019, dated 26.11.2019) and held that the contrary view taken by another division bench in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) does not lay down the correct proposition of law. 6. As noted earlier, we find that the penalty notice dated 26.02.2014 & 23.12.2011 didn’t explicitly convey to the assessee the specific fault/charge the assessee was being proceeded against for levy of penalty. Resultantly, the show cause notice is found to be defective/invalid, and the…

Shri Raghav Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 957/CHNY/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.957 To 959/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2008-09 Shri Raghav Reddy, The Income Tax Officer, Om Shakthy Tower-2, Non-Corporate Ward-2(3), No.Ts 64, Chennai. Sidco Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aafpr 6559 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T. Ramesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Vikneswaran, JCIT
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…t upheld the view of the division bench order in the case of PCIT Vs. Goa Dourado Promotions (P.) Ltd. (Tax Appeal No.18 of 2019, dated 26.11.2019) and held that the contrary view taken by another division bench in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) does not lay down the correct proposition of law. 6. As noted earlier, we find that the penalty notice dated 26.02.2014 & 23.12.2011 didn’t explicitly convey to the assessee the specific fault/charge the assessee was being proceeded against for levy of penalty. Resultantly, the show cause notice is found to be defective/invalid, and the…

Pradeep Dayanand Kothari, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 27/CHNY/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.26 & 27/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 V. Shri Pradeep Dayanand Kothari, The Dy. Commissioner – Kothari Buildings, 4Th Floor, Of Income Tax, 114, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Corporate Circle-4(2), Chennai-600 034. Chennai.

For Appellant: Ms. N.V.Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…pheld the view of the division bench order in the case of PCIT Vs. Goa Dourado Promotions (P.) Ltd. (Tax Appeal No.18 of 2019, dated 26.11.2019) and held that the contrary view taken by an another division bench in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) does not lay down the correct proposition of law. As noted earlier, we find that the penalty notice for both AY’s dated 5. 31.03.2013 didn’t explicitly convey to the assessee the specific fault/charge the assessee is being proceeded for levy of penalty. Resultantly, the show cause notice is found to be defective/invalid, and therefore i…

Pradeep Dayanand Kothari, Chennai vs. DCIT, Tax Corporate Cricle 4(2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 26/CHNY/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.26 & 27/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 V. Shri Pradeep Dayanand Kothari, The Dy. Commissioner – Kothari Buildings, 4Th Floor, Of Income Tax, 114, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Corporate Circle-4(2), Chennai-600 034. Chennai.

For Appellant: Ms. N.V.Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…pheld the view of the division bench order in the case of PCIT Vs. Goa Dourado Promotions (P.) Ltd. (Tax Appeal No.18 of 2019, dated 26.11.2019) and held that the contrary view taken by an another division bench in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) does not lay down the correct proposition of law. As noted earlier, we find that the penalty notice for both AY’s dated 5. 31.03.2013 didn’t explicitly convey to the assessee the specific fault/charge the assessee is being proceeded for levy of penalty. Resultantly, the show cause notice is found to be defective/invalid, and therefore i…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-10, Chennai vs. Sj Suryah, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 594/CHNY/2024[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri S.J.Suryah, The Asst. Commissioner- No.35-1D, Of Income Tax, 114, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Central Circle-2(4), T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Alyps 3012 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…case of PCIT Vs. Goa Dourado Promotions (P.) Ltd. (Tax Appeal No.18 of 2019, dated 26.11.2019) and held that the contrary view taken by another division bench in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. ITA No.594/Chny/2024 (AY 2002-03) SJ Suryah :: 15 :: Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) does not lay down the correct proposition of law. 11. As noted earlier, we find that the penalty notice dated 30.03.2005 did not explicitly convey to the assessee the specific fault/charge the assessee was being proceeded against for levy of penalty. Resultantly, the show cause notice is found to be defective/invalid, and therefore it is…

Shri.S.J.Suryah, Chennai, Tamil Nadu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 806/CHNY/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri S.J.Suryah, The Asst. Commissioner- No.35-1D, Of Income Tax, 114, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Central Circle-2(4), T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Alyps 3012 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…case of PCIT Vs. Goa Dourado Promotions (P.) Ltd. (Tax Appeal No.18 of 2019, dated 26.11.2019) and held that the contrary view taken by another division bench in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. ITA No.594/Chny/2024 (AY 2002-03) SJ Suryah :: 15 :: Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) does not lay down the correct proposition of law. 11. As noted earlier, we find that the penalty notice dated 30.03.2005 did not explicitly convey to the assessee the specific fault/charge the assessee was being proceeded against for levy of penalty. Resultantly, the show cause notice is found to be defective/invalid, and therefore it is…

M/S Enria Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT. Central Circle - 3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1167/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 2Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(9)

…A Nos.1166 & 1167/Chny/2023 :: 19 :: 2. Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation vs DCIT, 84 Taxmann.com 51 3. Mahesh M Gandhi vs ACIT.ITA No.2976/Mum/2016 dated 27.02.2017 4. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt, Kaushalya1 & Ors. (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom). 5. Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of ML/s. Maharaj Garage & Company Vs. CIT Dt.22-08-2017. 6. Hon'ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v, Mithila Motors (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 731 (Patna) 7. Sundaram Finance Limited Vs ACIT ( 2008) 99 taxmann.com 152 8.Jyothirmoy yamsani Vs DCIT ITA No 1519/Hyd/20l6 9. Manjee…

M/S Enrice Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1166/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 2Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(9)

…A Nos.1166 & 1167/Chny/2023 :: 19 :: 2. Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation vs DCIT, 84 Taxmann.com 51 3. Mahesh M Gandhi vs ACIT.ITA No.2976/Mum/2016 dated 27.02.2017 4. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt, Kaushalya1 & Ors. (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom). 5. Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of ML/s. Maharaj Garage & Company Vs. CIT Dt.22-08-2017. 6. Hon'ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v, Mithila Motors (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 731 (Patna) 7. Sundaram Finance Limited Vs ACIT ( 2008) 99 taxmann.com 152 8.Jyothirmoy yamsani Vs DCIT ITA No 1519/Hyd/20l6 9. Manjee…

Sree Navaladian Finance, Namakkal vs. ITO, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1157/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…No. 3830 & 3833/Mum/2009 dated 21.03.2017 2. Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation vs DCIT,84 Taxmann.com 51 3. Mahesh M Gandhi vs ACIT.ITA No.2976/Mum/2016 dated 27.02.2017 4. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt.Kaushalyal & Ors. (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom). 5. Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of M/s.Maharaj Garage & Company Vs. CIT Dt. 22-08-2017. 6. Hon'ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motors (P.) Ltd. (1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) 7. Sundaram Finance Limited Vs ACIT ( 2008) 99 taxmann.com 152 8. Jyothirmoy yamsani Vs DCIT ITA No 1519/Hyd/2016 9. Manjeet ka…

Sree Navaladiyan Finance, Salem vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1156/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…No. 3830 & 3833/Mum/2009 dated 21.03.2017 2. Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation vs DCIT,84 Taxmann.com 51 3. Mahesh M Gandhi vs ACIT.ITA No.2976/Mum/2016 dated 27.02.2017 4. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt.Kaushalyal & Ors. (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom). 5. Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of M/s.Maharaj Garage & Company Vs. CIT Dt. 22-08-2017. 6. Hon'ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motors (P.) Ltd. (1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) 7. Sundaram Finance Limited Vs ACIT ( 2008) 99 taxmann.com 152 8. Jyothirmoy yamsani Vs DCIT ITA No 1519/Hyd/2016 9. Manjeet ka…

Sreenavaladian Finance, Salem vs. DCIT, Centralcircle, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1155/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…No. 3830 & 3833/Mum/2009 dated 21.03.2017 2. Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation vs DCIT,84 Taxmann.com 51 3. Mahesh M Gandhi vs ACIT.ITA No.2976/Mum/2016 dated 27.02.2017 4. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt.Kaushalyal & Ors. (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom). 5. Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of M/s.Maharaj Garage & Company Vs. CIT Dt. 22-08-2017. 6. Hon'ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motors (P.) Ltd. (1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) 7. Sundaram Finance Limited Vs ACIT ( 2008) 99 taxmann.com 152 8. Jyothirmoy yamsani Vs DCIT ITA No 1519/Hyd/2016 9. Manjeet ka…

Sree Navaladiyan Finance, Namakkal vs. DCIT, Cent Circle, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1154/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…No. 3830 & 3833/Mum/2009 dated 21.03.2017 2. Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation vs DCIT,84 Taxmann.com 51 3. Mahesh M Gandhi vs ACIT.ITA No.2976/Mum/2016 dated 27.02.2017 4. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt.Kaushalyal & Ors. (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom). 5. Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of M/s.Maharaj Garage & Company Vs. CIT Dt. 22-08-2017. 6. Hon'ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motors (P.) Ltd. (1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) 7. Sundaram Finance Limited Vs ACIT ( 2008) 99 taxmann.com 152 8. Jyothirmoy yamsani Vs DCIT ITA No 1519/Hyd/2016 9. Manjeet ka…

S Sagar Enterprise, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2895/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2895/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) S Sagar Enterprise बिधम/ Dcit, Cc-1(1) Be-5010, Bharat Diamond Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Vs. Bourse, Bandra Kurla Cgo Annexe, Maharishi Complex, Bandra (East), Karve Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagfs8866G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rahul Sarda (Adv) Revenue By: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai Dated 22.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee As Discernable From Perusal Of Grounds Of Appeal Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Act (Hereinafter “The Act”) To The Tune Of Rs.16,17,140/-.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Sarda (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath (Sr. AR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…bench order in the case of PCIT Vs. Goa Dourado Promotions (P.) Ltd. (Tax Appeal No.18 of 2019, dated 26.11.2019) and held that the contrary view taken by another division bench in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushalya (1995) 3 A.Y. 2010-11 S Sagar Enterprises 216 ITR 660 (Bom) does not lay down the correct proposition of law. Moreover, we find that in the quantum assessment estimated addition of 100% of purchases was made by AO, which was reduced to 30% of purchase by the Ld. CIT(A). In such a scenario, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was not warranted because estimated addition has inherent subjectivity involve…

Himanshu Chimanlal Engineer, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 19 (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3209/MUM/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3209/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3208/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Himanshu Chimanlal बिधम/ Assistant Commissioner Engineer Income Tax, 19 (2) Vs. 33 – Chamunda Niwas, B- Piramal Chambers, Wing, 3Rd Floor, Tagore Parel, Mumbai-400012. Road, Santa Cruz (West), Mumbai-400054. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaape0548H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anant N Pai Revenue By: Shri. P D Chougle (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi (Nfac) [Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 14.07.2023 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2007-08 & Ay 2009-10. 2. Both Sides Agree That These Appeals Are Penalty Appeals; & Facts As Well As The Penalty Levied Are Similar/Identical In Both Appeals. Therefore, Appeal For The Ay 2007-08 Is Taken As The Lead Case & The Result Of Which Will Be Followed Mutatis Mutandis For The Appeal For Ay 2009-10. A.Y. 2007-08, 2009-10 Himanshu Chimanlal Engineer, Mumbai 3. Coming To Appeal For Ay 2007-08, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Anant N Pai Pointed Out That The Ao Had Levied An Amount Of Rs.5,00,000/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) By Penalty Order Dated 31.03.2014 For Ay. 2007-08 (And Rs. 10,00,000/- For Ay 2009-10). Further According To Him, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Impugned Penalty Levied By The Ao. Before Us The Assessee Has Raised An Addition Ground Of Appeal Wherein Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Which Is Reproduced As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Anant N PaiFor Respondent: Shri. P D Chougle (Sr. AR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…eld the view of the division bench order in the case of PCIT Vs. Goa Dourado Promotions (P.) Ltd. (Tax Appeal No.18 of 2019, dated 26.11.2019) and also held that the contrary view taken by an another division bench in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) does not lay down the correct proposition of law. 7. As noted earlier, we find that the penalty notice dated 29.12.2009 (for AY 2007-08) & notice dated 21.12.2011 (for AY 2009-10) did not explicitly convey to the assessee the specific fault/charge the assessee is being proceeded for levy of penalty. Resultantly, the show cause notices need…

Himanshu Chimanlal Engineer, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 19 (2) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3208/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3209/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3208/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Himanshu Chimanlal बिधम/ Assistant Commissioner Engineer Income Tax, 19 (2) Vs. 33 – Chamunda Niwas, B- Piramal Chambers, Wing, 3Rd Floor, Tagore Parel, Mumbai-400012. Road, Santa Cruz (West), Mumbai-400054. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaape0548H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anant N Pai Revenue By: Shri. P D Chougle (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi (Nfac) [Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 14.07.2023 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2007-08 & Ay 2009-10. 2. Both Sides Agree That These Appeals Are Penalty Appeals; & Facts As Well As The Penalty Levied Are Similar/Identical In Both Appeals. Therefore, Appeal For The Ay 2007-08 Is Taken As The Lead Case & The Result Of Which Will Be Followed Mutatis Mutandis For The Appeal For Ay 2009-10. A.Y. 2007-08, 2009-10 Himanshu Chimanlal Engineer, Mumbai 3. Coming To Appeal For Ay 2007-08, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Anant N Pai Pointed Out That The Ao Had Levied An Amount Of Rs.5,00,000/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) By Penalty Order Dated 31.03.2014 For Ay. 2007-08 (And Rs. 10,00,000/- For Ay 2009-10). Further According To Him, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Impugned Penalty Levied By The Ao. Before Us The Assessee Has Raised An Addition Ground Of Appeal Wherein Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Which Is Reproduced As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Anant N PaiFor Respondent: Shri. P D Chougle (Sr. AR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…eld the view of the division bench order in the case of PCIT Vs. Goa Dourado Promotions (P.) Ltd. (Tax Appeal No.18 of 2019, dated 26.11.2019) and also held that the contrary view taken by an another division bench in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) does not lay down the correct proposition of law. 7. As noted earlier, we find that the penalty notice dated 29.12.2009 (for AY 2007-08) & notice dated 21.12.2011 (for AY 2009-10) did not explicitly convey to the assessee the specific fault/charge the assessee is being proceeded for levy of penalty. Resultantly, the show cause notices need…

Titan Laboratories Pvt Ltd, Ghatkopare (E) vs. ACIT-14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3268/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3268/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Titan Laboratories Pvt. बिधम/ Acit, Circle-14(3)(1) Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. A/01-Gf & A/101 Plot No. Road, Mumbai-400020. 120, Anand Bhavan Road, Spectrum Building, Rb Mehta Marg, Tilak Road, Ghatkopare (E), Mumbai- 400077. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacct0509Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Poojari Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chougule (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/01/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi Dated 30.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee As Discernable From Perusal Of Grounds Of Appeal Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Act (Hereinafter “The Act”) To The Tune Of Rs.14,88,214/-.

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra PoojariFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Sr. AR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…n the case of PCIT Vs. Goa Dourado Promotions (P.) Ltd. (Tax Appeal No.18 of 2019, dated 26.11.2019) and held that the contrary view taken by another division bench in the case of CIT Vs. 3 A.Y. 2010-11 M/s. Titan Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Smt. Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) does not lay down the correct proposition of law. 4. Since we find that the specific fault/charge against which the assessee was called upon to explain vide the notice dated 28.03.2013 did not explicitly convey to the assessee for which fault/charge the assessee is being proceeded against, therefore, the show cause notice is found to be de…

Shri.Prakash R. Nair, Kollam vs. DCIT, Kollam

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 141/COCH/2021[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 148(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80Section 801A(9)Section 80HSection 80I

…off, as in T.A. Abdul Khadar (supra); CIT v. Maharaj Krishan [2000] 246 ITR 327 (Del), to cite two. Instances w.r.t. s.271(1)(c) are again several, viz., Maharaj Garage & Co. v. CIT [2018] 400 ITR 292 (Bom)(rendered independent of CIT v. Smt. Kaushalya [1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bom)), not considered by it in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh (supra)); CIT v. Chandulal [1985] 152 ITR 238 (AP); CIT v. Mithila Motors Pvt. Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Pat); Hajarilal Kishorilal v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 563 (MP). None of these decisions, based on fundamental principles of law, stand considered in the decisions in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Gi…

Ramnik Sushil Chaudhry, Mumbai vs. Assistant .CIT Circle (3), Thane

The appeals are allowed

ITA 2820/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh R ShahFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair
Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…the jurisdictional High Court in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs DCIT, Belgaum (supra). That was a reference made in view of the conflict of decision of the co-ordinate Benches between two sets of cases; first of which was led by the case in CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya 216 ITR 660 (Bom) and the contrary view was taken in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar). 13. The Full Bench dwelt upon the following questions: “Question No.1: If assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or other, or both grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c), does a mere defect in notice- not st…

Bal Bharti Nursery School, Allahabad vs. ITO(Exemption), Allahabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 64/ALLD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad06 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.62/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.63/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.64/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bal Bharti Nursery School बिधम/ Ito (Exemption 13, Kamla Nehru Road, Allahabad) Vs. Civil Lines, Allahabad, Central Revenue Uttar Pradesh-211001. Building, M. G. Marg, Income Tax Office, Allahabad-211001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb6395D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Ashish Bansal Revenue By: Shri Amlendu Nath Mishra (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.03.2023 For Ay. 2008-09, Ay. 2010-11 & Ay. 2011-12 Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. Since Both Parties Agree That The Penalty Levied By The Ao/Ld. Cit(A) Are Similar/Identical In All The Captioned Assessment Years, The Decision Of Any One Appeal Would Determine The Fate Of Others. Therefore, Appeal Of Ay. 2008-09 Is Taken As The Lead Case, (However, A.Y. 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Bal Bharti Nursery School The Contents/Details Of Impugned Notices For All The Captioned Years Will Be Discussed Separately Infra).

For Appellant: Shri Ashish BansalFor Respondent: Shri Amlendu Nath Mishra (Sr. DR)
Section 10Section 12ASection 271(1)(c)

…ourt upheld the view of the division bench order in the case of PCIT Vs. Goa Dourado Promotions (P.) Ltd. (Tax Appeal No.18 of 2019, dated 26.11.2019) and held that the contrary view taken by another division bench in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) does not lay down the correct proposition of law. Further, the Ld AR assailing the penalty levied by the AO on a different ground submitted that the penalty levied for “concealment of particulars of income” could not lie against assessee since the assessee had duly disclosed in the audit report [at the time of filing of return] that the pro…