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

ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi vs. Anand Divine Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.4499/Del

ITA 4498/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

…clarity of charge to be created against the assessee, the action of the Assessing Officer is bad in law and voilation of the principles of natural justice. Support in this regard is taken from Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Kaushalya (1995)(216 ITR 660)(Bom.)(HC) and 12 ITA.No.4498/Del./2017 M/s. Anand Divine Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Co vs. CIT (2006) (282 ITR 642) (Guj.) (HC). Considering the fact that the appellant company was new in this line of business, it would not have been possible for the appellant to execute such larg…

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 214/CTK/2020[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…plicable portion in the printed notice, whether it would vitiate the penalty proceeding and the consequential order of penalty or not. This issue has been decided in the favour of Revenue by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya (216 ITR 660) (paras 7 to 12). It was held by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court that section 274 or any other provision in the Act or the Rules, does not either mandate the giving of the notice or its issuance in a particular form. Penalty proceedings are quasi- criminal in nature. Section 274 contains a principle of natural justice of the assessee being heard be…

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 213/CTK/2020[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…plicable portion in the printed notice, whether it would vitiate the penalty proceeding and the consequential order of penalty or not. This issue has been decided in the favour of Revenue by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya (216 ITR 660) (paras 7 to 12). It was held by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court that section 274 or any other provision in the Act or the Rules, does not either mandate the giving of the notice or its issuance in a particular form. Penalty proceedings are quasi- criminal in nature. Section 274 contains a principle of natural justice of the assessee being heard be…

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 212/CTK/2020[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…plicable portion in the printed notice, whether it would vitiate the penalty proceeding and the consequential order of penalty or not. This issue has been decided in the favour of Revenue by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya (216 ITR 660) (paras 7 to 12). It was held by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court that section 274 or any other provision in the Act or the Rules, does not either mandate the giving of the notice or its issuance in a particular form. Penalty proceedings are quasi- criminal in nature. Section 274 contains a principle of natural justice of the assessee being heard be…

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswaar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 211/CTK/2020[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…plicable portion in the printed notice, whether it would vitiate the penalty proceeding and the consequential order of penalty or not. This issue has been decided in the favour of Revenue by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya (216 ITR 660) (paras 7 to 12). It was held by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court that section 274 or any other provision in the Act or the Rules, does not either mandate the giving of the notice or its issuance in a particular form. Penalty proceedings are quasi- criminal in nature. Section 274 contains a principle of natural justice of the assessee being heard be…

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 210/CTK/2020[2004-05]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…plicable portion in the printed notice, whether it would vitiate the penalty proceeding and the consequential order of penalty or not. This issue has been decided in the favour of Revenue by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya (216 ITR 660) (paras 7 to 12). It was held by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court that section 274 or any other provision in the Act or the Rules, does not either mandate the giving of the notice or its issuance in a particular form. Penalty proceedings are quasi- criminal in nature. Section 274 contains a principle of natural justice of the assessee being heard be…

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 13/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…plicable portion in the printed notice, whether it would vitiate the penalty proceeding and the consequential order of penalty or not. This issue has been decided in the favour of Revenue by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya (216 ITR 660) (paras 7 to 12). It was held by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court that section 274 or any other provision in the Act or the Rules, does not either mandate the giving of the notice or its issuance in a particular form. Penalty proceedings are quasi- criminal in nature. Section 274 contains a principle of natural justice of the assessee being heard be…

Sarosh Yazdani, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 12/CTK/2014[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…plicable portion in the printed notice, whether it would vitiate the penalty proceeding and the consequential order of penalty or not. This issue has been decided in the favour of Revenue by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya (216 ITR 660) (paras 7 to 12). It was held by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court that section 274 or any other provision in the Act or the Rules, does not either mandate the giving of the notice or its issuance in a particular form. Penalty proceedings are quasi- criminal in nature. Section 274 contains a principle of natural justice of the assessee being heard be…

Gaurishankar Chaudhary, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 6112/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Harmesh Lal
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…ITA Nos. 6110 to 6113/Mum/2019 1 Gaurishankar Chaudhary Vs. ACIT, CC-4(4) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.6110 to 6113/Mum/2019 (A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2014-15) Gaurishankar Chaudhary Vs. ACIT, CC-4(4) Flat No. 103 & 104, Sea 1922, 19th Floor, Air Shell Apartment, Opp. India Building, Nana Nani Park, Seven Nariman Point, Bungalows, Andheri West Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 061 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: ACXPC8039Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Harmesh Lal Date…

Gaurishankar Chaudhary, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 6110/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Harmesh Lal
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…ITA Nos. 6110 to 6113/Mum/2019 1 Gaurishankar Chaudhary Vs. ACIT, CC-4(4) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.6110 to 6113/Mum/2019 (A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2014-15) Gaurishankar Chaudhary Vs. ACIT, CC-4(4) Flat No. 103 & 104, Sea 1922, 19th Floor, Air Shell Apartment, Opp. India Building, Nana Nani Park, Seven Nariman Point, Bungalows, Andheri West Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 061 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: ACXPC8039Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Harmesh Lal Date…

Magnaram Choudhary, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 17(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7077/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7077/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Shri Magnaram Choudhary बिधम/ Ito-17(2)(3) Flat No. 304, Building No. Matru Mandir, Mumbai. Vs. B-2/D, Nav Maharashtra Nagar Co-Op Society, M. P. Mill Compound, Tardeo, Mumbai-400034. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ainpc0320L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee An Individual Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28 Mumbai Dated 03.05.2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 271Section 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 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. 5. As noted earlier, we find that the penalty notice dated 20.12.2012 did not 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 it is held to be…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 234/CTK/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…plicable portion in the printed notice, whether it would vitiate the penalty proceeding and the consequential order of penalty or not. This issue has been decided in the favour of Revenue by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya (216 ITR 660) (paras 7 to 12). It was held by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court that section 274 or any other provision in the Act or the Rules, does not either mandate the giving of the notice or its issuance in a particular form. Penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Section 274 contains a principle of natural justice of the assessee being heard bef…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 233/CTK/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…plicable portion in the printed notice, whether it would vitiate the penalty proceeding and the consequential order of penalty or not. This issue has been decided in the favour of Revenue by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya (216 ITR 660) (paras 7 to 12). It was held by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court that section 274 or any other provision in the Act or the Rules, does not either mandate the giving of the notice or its issuance in a particular form. Penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Section 274 contains a principle of natural justice of the assessee being heard bef…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 202/CTK/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…plicable portion in the printed notice, whether it would vitiate the penalty proceeding and the consequential order of penalty or not. This issue has been decided in the favour of Revenue by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya (216 ITR 660) (paras 7 to 12). It was held by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court that section 274 or any other provision in the Act or the Rules, does not either mandate the giving of the notice or its issuance in a particular form. Penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Section 274 contains a principle of natural justice of the assessee being heard bef…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 201/CTK/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…plicable portion in the printed notice, whether it would vitiate the penalty proceeding and the consequential order of penalty or not. This issue has been decided in the favour of Revenue by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya (216 ITR 660) (paras 7 to 12). It was held by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court that section 274 or any other provision in the Act or the Rules, does not either mandate the giving of the notice or its issuance in a particular form. Penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Section 274 contains a principle of natural justice of the assessee being heard bef…

S.M.Enterprisera, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 200/CTK/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…plicable portion in the printed notice, whether it would vitiate the penalty proceeding and the consequential order of penalty or not. This issue has been decided in the favour of Revenue by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya (216 ITR 660) (paras 7 to 12). It was held by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court that section 274 or any other provision in the Act or the Rules, does not either mandate the giving of the notice or its issuance in a particular form. Penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Section 274 contains a principle of natural justice of the assessee being heard bef…

S M Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 199/CTK/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…plicable portion in the printed notice, whether it would vitiate the penalty proceeding and the consequential order of penalty or not. This issue has been decided in the favour of Revenue by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya (216 ITR 660) (paras 7 to 12). It was held by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court that section 274 or any other provision in the Act or the Rules, does not either mandate the giving of the notice or its issuance in a particular form. Penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Section 274 contains a principle of natural justice of the assessee being heard bef…

Mehul Jadavji Shah, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee regarding of partly allowed

ITA 1380/MUM/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.191/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1380/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Mehul Jadavji Shah बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) 1301, 13Th Floor, Peninsula Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Vs. Business Park, Tower-B Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Senapati Bapat Marg, Road, Mumbai-400020. Lower Parel (W), Mumbai- 400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajps1654H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sukhsagar Syal Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…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. 21. As noted (supra), we find that the specific fault/charge against which the assessee was called upon to explain vide the notice dated 04.12.2017/14.02.2019 (page 55&56 paperbook) did not explicitly convey to the assessee for which fault/charge the assessee is being proceeded against for…

Mehul Jadavji Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 7 (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee regarding of partly allowed

ITA 191/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.191/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1380/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Mehul Jadavji Shah बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) 1301, 13Th Floor, Peninsula Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Vs. Business Park, Tower-B Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Senapati Bapat Marg, Road, Mumbai-400020. Lower Parel (W), Mumbai- 400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajps1654H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sukhsagar Syal Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…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. 21. As noted (supra), we find that the specific fault/charge against which the assessee was called upon to explain vide the notice dated 04.12.2017/14.02.2019 (page 55&56 paperbook) did not explicitly convey to the assessee for which fault/charge the assessee is being proceeded against for…

Kamlesh M. Kanungo, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1618/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalkamlesh M. Kanungo, C/O. D.C. Bothra& Co. Llp (Ca), (Formerly Known As D.C. Bothra & Co.), 297, Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion, 1St Floor, Opp. Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400004. Pan: Abbpk9675R ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Cit- Cc-1(4), 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Annexe Building, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Rajkumar Singh Respondent By : Sh. Manoj Sinha Date Of Hearing : 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 10.02.2021 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2007-08. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Sinha
Section 133Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…assessee. Relevant extract of the High Court decision we are reproducing herein below: “As aptly pointed out by the referring Division Bench, before this Court there are two sets of cases. One set of cases is led by CIT v. Smt. Kaushalya [1994] 75 Taxman 549/216 ITR 660 (Bombay) a decision earliest in point of time. The other set does not have a lead case; they all have been cryptic but stand persuaded by Manjunatha (supra). For that reason, the Karnataka High Court's decision has 5 ITA No. 1618/Mum/2021-Kamlesh M. Kanungo been discussed in detail. Nevertheless, the referring Division Bench has found on one pr…