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 366,314 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

Sri Chandan Das, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-24(3), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1500/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No.1500/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri David Z Chawngthu, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ving Equipment Service Corporation Vs. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai, (2017) 84 taxmann.com 51 (iii) Mahesh M.Gandhi Vs. ACIT Vs. ACIT ITA No.2976/Mum/2016 dated 27.2.2017. Reliance was placed on two decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court viz., (i) CIT Vs. Kaushalya 216 ITR 660(Bom) and (ii) M/S.Maharaj Garage & Co. Vs. CIT dated 22.8.2017. This decision was referred to in the written note given by the ld DR. This is an unreported decision and a copy of the same was not furnished. However a gist of the ratio laid down in the decision has been given in the written note filed before us. 9. In the case of CIT Vs. Kaushaly…

Jeetmal Choraria, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-43, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 956/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Dec 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No.956/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ving Equipment Service Corporation Vs. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai, (2017) 84 taxmann.com 51 (iii) Mahesh M.Gandhi Vs. ACIT Vs. ACIT ITA No.2976/Mum/2016 dated 27.2.2017. Reliance was placed on two decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court viz., (i) CIT Vs. Kaushalya 216 ITR 660(Bom) and (ii) M/S.Maharaj Garage & Co. Vs. CIT dated 22.8.2017. This decision was referred to in the written note given by the learned DR. This is an unreported decision and a copy of the same was not furnished. However a gist of the ratio laid down in the decision has been given in the written note filed before us. 9. In the case of CIT Vs. Kau…

Sansui Steels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 7(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1403/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Sansui Steel Pvt. Ltd. Ito-7(2)(2), 401-C, Gokul Building, Room No. 621-A, Vs. 80A Baroda Street, Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Iron Market, S.T. Road, Marg, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400009 Pan No.Aaacs8834K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjpe, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/09/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11/2017

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjpe, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Sansui Steel Pvt. Ltd. ITO-7(2)(2), 401-C, Gokul Building, Room No. 621-A, Vs. 80A Baroda Street, Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Iron Market, S.T. Road, Marg, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400009 PAN No.AAACS8834K Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjpe, AR Revenue by : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR Date of Hearing : 27/09/2017 Date of pronouncement : 30/11/2017 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by t…

Polychem Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5148/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…oresaid principle laid down in case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra) still holds good in spite of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v/s Dharmendra Textile Processors, [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC). Even in case of CIT v/s Kaushalya & Ors. [1995] 261 ITR 660, on which the Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has observed that notice issued under section 274 must reveal application of mind by the Assessing Officer and the assessee must be made aware of the exact charge on which he had to file his explanation. The Court observed, vagueness and ambiguity…

Autoriders India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 9(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

ITA 2805/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. &
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…cision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dr. Sarita Milind Davare in ITA No. 2187/Mum/2014 dated 21.12.2016 wherein after, inter alia, considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. B. Kaushalya and Others (216 ITR 660) and the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dilip N. Shroff (291 ITR 519) (SC), Dharmendra Textile Processors (306 ITR 277) (SC) and Reliance Petro Products P. Ltd. ((322 ITR 158) (SC) and of the Hon'ble Karnataka high Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) the Bench has held that since the AO in t…

Autoriders India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 9(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

ITA 2804/MUM/2012[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 1999-00

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. &
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…cision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dr. Sarita Milind Davare in ITA No. 2187/Mum/2014 dated 21.12.2016 wherein after, inter alia, considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. B. Kaushalya and Others (216 ITR 660) and the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dilip N. Shroff (291 ITR 519) (SC), Dharmendra Textile Processors (306 ITR 277) (SC) and Reliance Petro Products P. Ltd. ((322 ITR 158) (SC) and of the Hon'ble Karnataka high Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) the Bench has held that since the AO in t…

Autoriders India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 9(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

ITA 2803/MUM/2012[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 1997-98

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. &
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…cision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dr. Sarita Milind Davare in ITA No. 2187/Mum/2014 dated 21.12.2016 wherein after, inter alia, considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. B. Kaushalya and Others (216 ITR 660) and the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dilip N. Shroff (291 ITR 519) (SC), Dharmendra Textile Processors (306 ITR 277) (SC) and Reliance Petro Products P. Ltd. ((322 ITR 158) (SC) and of the Hon'ble Karnataka high Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) the Bench has held that since the AO in t…

The Thane District Central Co. Op. Bank Ltd, Thane vs. ACIT Cir 3, Thane

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

ITA 5038/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.K Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2009-2010 The Thane District Central Co. Acit Cir 3 Op. Bank Ltd. 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Rd Vs. Shivaji Path, Thane (W) No. 167 Wagle Indl Estate Thane - 400601 Thane Pin:400604 Pan Aaaato739N (Appellant) Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashok J. ParilFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…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 Dav…

Bermaco Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2825/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Bermaco Industries Limited The Asst. Commissioner D-73/1, Ttc Industries Area, Of Income Tax Midc, Turbhe Central Circle-8(4), Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 705 Mumbai

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…out as to whether the penalty proceedings are sought to be levied for "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income "or "concealing particulars of such income". On this aspect, I would like to rely on the Hon'ble Bombay High Court Case of Kaushalya & Others (216 ITR 660 Bombay) wherein it has been held that: - The assessment orders were already made and the reasons for issuing the notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) were recorded by the Income-tax Officer. The assessee fully knew in detail the exact charge of the Department against him. In this background, it could not be said that either there…

Vidya Vardhini, Thane vs. ACIT Cen Cir 2, Thane

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3730/MUM/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 142Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…oresaid principle laid down in case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra) still holds good in spite of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v/s Dharmendra Textile Processors, [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC). Even in case of CIT v/s Kaushalya & Ors. [1995] 261 ITR 660, on which the Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has observed that notice issued under section 274 of the Act must reveal application of mind by the Assessing Officer and the assessee must be made aware of the exact charge on which he had to file his explanation. The Court observed, vagueness and…

Preeeti Jhangiani, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 5447/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Mr. R.C. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajat Mittal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Ms. Preeti Jhangiani ITO-11(1)(3) 17, Sea Mist, 14, Palli Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Vs. Road, Bandra (W) Road, Mumbai400020. Mumbai-400050. PAN No. ACZPJ7129C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. R.C. Jain, AR Revenue by : Mr. Rajat Mittal, DR Date of Hearing : 22/08/2017 Date of pronouncement : 03/11/2017 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. The captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order of the…

R.Vasuki, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 899/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mrs. Veni Raj, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 03.08.2017
Section 131Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and was given an opportunity of being heard. A mistake in the notice would not invalidate penalty proceedings.’ A similar issue came up in CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya & Others [1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bom). Relying on the decision in Mithila Motors (supra), it was held as under: ‘Sec. 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 contains a principle of natural justice of the assessee being heard before levying penalty. Rules of natural justice cannot be imprisoned in any straight-jacket formula. For sustaining a complaint of failure of the principles of n…

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Dhanvinder Bindra, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5699/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…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 Dav…

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Dhanvinder Bindra, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5698/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…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 Dav…

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Dhanvinder Bindra, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5697/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…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 Dav…

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Dhanvinder Bindra, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5696/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…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 Dav…

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Dhanvinder Bindra, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5695/MUM/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…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 Dav…

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Dhanvinder Binddra, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5694/MUM/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…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 Dav…

ACIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Ziauddin A. Siddique, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, as above

ITA 7413/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Tufail Ahmad Khan, D.R
Section 271

…e decision of the Tribunal holding levy of penalty in such circumstances being bad, has been approved. 7. 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…

Chandulal P. Shah ( HUF), Mumbai vs. ACIT 20(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 5656/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5656/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Chandulal P.Shah (Huf) Assistant Commissioner Of Eastern Chemicals, 6Th Floor Income Tax-20(1) बनाम/ 601-B, Morya Landmark-Ii Mumbai – 400 020 Oshiwara Link Road Vs. Opp. Infinity Mall Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabhc-3234-M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Paresh Shaparia, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Rajat Mittal, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ly in Wadhwa Estate & Developers Vs. ACIT [ITA N0. 2158/Mum/2016 dated 24/02/2017] & Jehangir HC Jehangir Vs. ACIT [ITA No. 1261/Mum/2011 17/05/2017] has taken the same view following the aforesaid judgments. 9. Further, in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushalya [216 ITR 660 14/01/1992], the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has observed that the notice issued under Section 274 must reveal application of mind by the Assessing Officer and the assessee must be aware of the exact charge on which he had to file his explanation. It was further observed that vagueness and ambiguity in the notice deprives the assessee of re…