CIT v. Kaushalya

Viren Vini Ahuja, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir- 84, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhshri Viren Vini Ahuja Acit, Cc-8(4), 1, Neelkanth Road No.6, Mumbai. Vs. Chembur, Mumbai-400071 Pan: Aacpa4809M (Appellant) (Respondent)

…Revenue supported the order of authorities below. It was argued that various Courts have held that penalty can be levied on the additions on estimate basis. The ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Kaushalya & Ors. (216 ITR 660), the decisions of Tribunal in Dhaval K. Jain vs. ITO in ITA No. 996/M/2014 and in Earthmoving Equipment Services Corporation vs. DCIT (ITA No. 6617/M/2014). 5. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the order of authorities below. We have perused the copy of notice dated 10.12.2011 issued by AO under sec…

Padmaja S. Sirigeri, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(3)(4) (Old Jurisdiction), Mumbai

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year : 2006 – 2007 Smt Padmaja S Sirigeri Ito 26(2)(4) 297, Tardeo Road, Mumbai Wille Mansion, 1St Floor, Opp Bank Of India, Nana Chowk Vs Mumbai 400 007

…. In the context of the ground raised by the assessee pertaining to 4 Smt Padmaja S Sirigeri non-striking of inappropriate portion of notice u/s. 274, the learned DR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kaushalya & Ors 216 ITR 660 (Bom). 5. We have heard both the sides and gone through the material available on record along with the orders of the authorities below. The assessment was reopened u/s. 147 by issuing notice u/s. 148 on 22.03.2015. The assessee filed here return of income on 28.11.2013. The notice u/s. 143(2) r.w.s. 147 was issued on 06.12.2013. The assessee…

Ramesh H Gada, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhshri Ramesh H Gada, The Ito 25(3) (3) C-10, Room No. 606, 6Th Floor, 9/A Narshina Prasad Building, Malviya Road, Opp Gala Eye Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Bandra Vs. Hospital, Ville Parle (East), Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400057 Mumbai-400051. Pan: Aabpg2968C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…e Revenue supported the order of authorities below. It was argued that various Courts have held that penalty can be levied on the additions on estimate basis. The ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Kaushalya & Ors. (216 ITR 660). 5 ITA No. 1100/Mum/2017- Shri Ramesh H Gada 5. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the order of authorities below. We have perused the copy of notice dated 10.12.2011 issued by AO under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c). The perusal of the notice reveals that the AO has not strike out the irrelevant por…

Orbit Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

…l holding levy of penalty in such circumstances being bad, has been approved. M/s. Orbit Enterprises 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…

Orbit Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

…l holding levy of penalty in such circumstances being bad, has been approved. M/s. Orbit Enterprises 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…

Rekha Bhupendra Dalal, Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD-II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singhrekha Bhupendra Dalal The Dcit, Osd-Ii, Bhupen Chambers, Ground Floor, Central Range-7, Vs. Dalal Street, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai. Pan: Aaupd0962E (Appellant) (Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Rekha Bhupendra Dalal The DCIT, OSD-II, Bhupen Chambers, Ground Floor, Central Range-7, Vs. Dalal Street, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai. PAN: AAUPD0962E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vipul Joshi- Advocate Revenue by : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen (DR) Date of hearing : 29.05.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 29.05.2017 Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee under section 253 of the Income-tax Act (the Act) is dire…

P.K. Joshua, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 26(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…mstances, the arguments of the ld.AR that the limb of the penalty notice under which the penalty was initiated was not struck-off was wrong and without substance. The ld. DR heavily relied on the decision in the case of CIT V/s Smt. Kaushalya And Athers(1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) in which it has been held that “Mere mistake in the language used or mere non-striking of the inaccurate portion cannot by itself invalidate the notice”. The ld.DR further submitted that the under 8 ITA NO s.4487 to 4491/ M um/ 2014 section 274 or in any other section of the Income Tax Act, there is no particular format of notice since stat…

P.K. Joshua, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 26(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…mstances, the arguments of the ld.AR that the limb of the penalty notice under which the penalty was initiated was not struck-off was wrong and without substance. The ld. DR heavily relied on the decision in the case of CIT V/s Smt. Kaushalya And Athers(1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) in which it has been held that “Mere mistake in the language used or mere non-striking of the inaccurate portion cannot by itself invalidate the notice”. The ld.DR further submitted that the under 8 ITA NO s.4487 to 4491/ M um/ 2014 section 274 or in any other section of the Income Tax Act, there is no particular format of notice since stat…

P.K. Joshua, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 26(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…mstances, the arguments of the ld.AR that the limb of the penalty notice under which the penalty was initiated was not struck-off was wrong and without substance. The ld. DR heavily relied on the decision in the case of CIT V/s Smt. Kaushalya And Athers(1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) in which it has been held that “Mere mistake in the language used or mere non-striking of the inaccurate portion cannot by itself invalidate the notice”. The ld.DR further submitted that the under 8 ITA NO s.4487 to 4491/ M um/ 2014 section 274 or in any other section of the Income Tax Act, there is no particular format of notice since stat…

P.K. Joshua, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 26(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…mstances, the arguments of the ld.AR that the limb of the penalty notice under which the penalty was initiated was not struck-off was wrong and without substance. The ld. DR heavily relied on the decision in the case of CIT V/s Smt. Kaushalya And Athers(1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) in which it has been held that “Mere mistake in the language used or mere non-striking of the inaccurate portion cannot by itself invalidate the notice”. The ld.DR further submitted that the under 8 ITA NO s.4487 to 4491/ M um/ 2014 section 274 or in any other section of the Income Tax Act, there is no particular format of notice since stat…

P.K. Joshua, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 26(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…mstances, the arguments of the ld.AR that the limb of the penalty notice under which the penalty was initiated was not struck-off was wrong and without substance. The ld. DR heavily relied on the decision in the case of CIT V/s Smt. Kaushalya And Athers(1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) in which it has been held that “Mere mistake in the language used or mere non-striking of the inaccurate portion cannot by itself invalidate the notice”. The ld.DR further submitted that the under 8 ITA NO s.4487 to 4491/ M um/ 2014 section 274 or in any other section of the Income Tax Act, there is no particular format of notice since stat…

Archana D.Talati, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Mrs. Archana D. Talati Vs. Ito – 25 (3)(3), Mumbai B/1101, Naman Tower Chs Ltd., Nr. Kandivali Flyover, Off. S.V.Road, Kandivali (West) Mumbai – 400 067 Pan/Gir No. Aacpb5257C Appellant) .. Respondent)

…d principle laid in Dilip N. Shroff (supra) still holds good in spite of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI v/s Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC). The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Smt. Kaushalya & Ors., [1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bom), 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 in the notice deprives the assessee of reasonable opportunity as he is unaware of the exact charg…

Aruna Satish Kabra, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as pronounced in the open court in the presence of both the parties at the conclusion of hearing on 31st May, 2017

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: (A.Y : 2008-09) Smt. Aruna Satish Kabra Vs. Ito-12(3)(4), C/O. Kabra Agencies Mumbai (Respondent) 2Nd Floor, Mustfa Building, Sir P.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 023 (Appellant) Pan : Aahpk4542N

…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…

Banggreen Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2005-06 is allowed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singh

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2000/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year-2007-08) Banggreen Holding Pvt. Ltd. DCIT Range (30(1) , Devidas Mansion, 4th Floor, Mumbai. Mereweather Road, Colaba, Vs. Mumbai-400039 PAN: AAACB2093F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Yogesh A. Thar with : Ms Ayushi Modani (AR) Revenue by : Shri Suman Kumar (DR) Date of hearing : 31.05.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2017 Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These two appeals b…

Gupta Gemhouse P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7370/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7371/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Gupta Gemhouse Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer (1)(4) 2Nd Floor, Metro House Room No. 579 बनाम/ M.G.Road Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 M.K.Marg Mumbai – 400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacg-1992-L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

…to claim fictitious business loss on sale made to associated concerns and incorrect valuation of stock and therefore, rightly saddled with the impugned penalties. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushalya [216 ITR 660 14/01/1992]. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant material on record including cited case laws. Since legal grounds goes to the roots of the matter, we take up the same first. A perusal of the ITA Nos.7370-71/M/2014 Gupta Gem House Private Ltd. Assessment Years-2003-04 & 2006-07 quantum assessment order reveals that the…

Gupta Gemhouse P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 1(1)(4), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7370/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7371/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Gupta Gemhouse Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer (1)(4) 2Nd Floor, Metro House Room No. 579 बनाम/ M.G.Road Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 M.K.Marg Mumbai – 400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacg-1992-L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

…to claim fictitious business loss on sale made to associated concerns and incorrect valuation of stock and therefore, rightly saddled with the impugned penalties. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushalya [216 ITR 660 14/01/1992]. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant material on record including cited case laws. Since legal grounds goes to the roots of the matter, we take up the same first. A perusal of the ITA Nos.7370-71/M/2014 Gupta Gem House Private Ltd. Assessment Years-2003-04 & 2006-07 quantum assessment order reveals that the…

Jahangir HC Jahangir, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 12(3), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1261/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

…ite being fully aware of his claims, made a wrong claim and therefore, rightly saddled with the impugned penalties. Reliance has 7 Jehangir HC Jehangir Assessment Year-2006-07 been placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushalya [216 ITR 660 14/01/1992]. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant material on record including cited case laws. Since legal grounds goes to the roots of the matter, we take up the same first. A perusal of the quantum assessment order reveals that the penalty has been initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and con…

Roop Kishanchand Khemani, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 31, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & C.N. Prasad (Jm)

…ty proceedings in the case ofDr. Sarita 14 Shri Roop Kishanchand Khemani & Shri Kumar Satur Nathani Milind Davare (supra). The co-ordinate bench considered the decision rendered by the jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Smt Kaushalya and Others (216 ITR 660), the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N Shroff (291 ITR 519) and other decisions discussed by the Bombay High Court in the case of Smt Kaushalya and others (supra) and came to the conclusion that the non-application of mind by the AO would vitiate the penalty proceedings, by following the decision of the jurisdicti…

Shri Kumar Satur Nathani, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 31, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & C.N. Prasad (Jm)

…ty proceedings in the case ofDr. Sarita 14 Shri Roop Kishanchand Khemani & Shri Kumar Satur Nathani Milind Davare (supra). The co-ordinate bench considered the decision rendered by the jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Smt Kaushalya and Others (216 ITR 660), the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N Shroff (291 ITR 519) and other decisions discussed by the Bombay High Court in the case of Smt Kaushalya and others (supra) and came to the conclusion that the non-application of mind by the AO would vitiate the penalty proceedings, by following the decision of the jurisdicti…

Meherjee Cassinath Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh: (A.Y : 2008-09)

…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…