CIT v. Kaushalya

Vijay Grihnirman P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 15 & 16, Mumbai

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

Bench: Us.

…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…

Korpus Financial Services Pvt Ltd, Fort Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. Circle -44, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

…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. 5. As noted earlier, we find that the penalty notice dated 22.03.2013 & 08.07.2013 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…

M/S Resources Realty P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Acti-Central Circle-11(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

…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. 4. As noted earlier we find that the specific fault/charge against which the assessee was called upon to explain vide the notice dated 30.03.2016 did not explicitly convey to the assessee for which fault/charge the assessee is being proceeded against. Resultantly, the show cause notice is va…

Magestic Premises Pvt Ltd., Thane vs. DCIT CC 2, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4974/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Magestic Premises Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-2 201, 2Nd Floor, Oasis Silver Ashar It Park 6Th Floor, Vs. Stone, Near Gaganan Wagle Industrial Estate Maharaj Temple Ram (W), Thane-400604. Maruti Road, Thane, West, Thane-400601. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecm5625L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Prateek Jain Revenue By: Shri T. Sankar (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022 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)-11, Pune Dated 29.02.2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Issuing Valid Notice (Without Specifying The Fault/Charge). 3. At The Outset, We Note That There Is Delay Of More Than 1177 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. In The Condonation Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Wherein The Assessee’S Director Has Sworn Before The Notary Public & Stated That Even Though The Impugned Order Was Passed U/S 153A Of The Act, It Was Handed Over To Him On 10.03.2016 & He In-Turn Handed Over The Same To One Of His Office Staff (Shri

…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. 4. As noted earlier, we find that the penalty notice dated 25.03.2014 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 b…

Unique Estates Dev. Co. Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT Cent. Cir-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2110/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Unique Estates Dev. Co. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(1) Pvt. Ltd. Room No.1906, 19Th Vs. Construction House-B, 2Nd Floor, Air India Bldg, Floor, 623, Linking Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Khar (W), Mumbai-400052. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu0699N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sanjay B. Sawant Revenue By: Ms. Vranda U. Matkarni सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/07/2022 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)-52, Mumbai Dated 26.10.2021 For Assessment Year 2011-12 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is As Under: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, On Issue Of Advancing Of Interest Free Loans Of Rs.4,68,220/- & So Called Bogus Purchases Of Rs.5,84,076/-.” 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Sanjay B. Sawant Brought To Our Notice That The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income On 30.09.2011 Declaring The Total Income Of Rs.12,39,12,768/-. The Scrutiny Assessment Was Completed On 18.03.2014 U/S 143(3) Of The Act Assessing Total Income (Normal Computation) At Rs.21,59,51,554/-

…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. In the light of the aforesaid case law, the Ld. AR wants us to cancel the penalty confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. We note that the notice in the instant case was issued by AO u/s 274 r.w. Section 271 of the Act dated 18.03.2014 calling upon the assessee to show cause as to why the penalty sh…

Roshan Sequeira, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.343/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Shri Roshan Sequeira बिधम/ Dcit-24(3) Iqn Data Solutions Pvt. Piramal Chambers, Vs. Ltd., 347, Laxmi Plaza Indl. Mumbai-400012. Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400059. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Asbps3025N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/07/2022 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)-36, Mumbai Dated (Not Specified) For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. None Appeared For The Assessee. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Discernable From 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 Act To The Tune Of Rs.18,00,000/-. 3. At The Outset, We Note That A Notice Has Been Issued By The Ao Dated 04.03.2014 Proposing Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Which According To Assessee Is Bad In Law. From A Perusal Of The Penalty Notice Dated 04.03.2014, We Note That The Ao Has Not Specified The Fault/Charge For Which Assessee Has Been Put To Notice For Levy Of Penalty. Meaning, The Show Cause Notice Does Not Specify For What

…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. 4. As noted earlier, we find that the specific fault/charge against which the assessee was called upon to explain vide the notice dated 04.03.2014 did not explicitly convey to the assessee for which fault/charge the assessee is being proceeded against. Resultantly, the show cause notice is f…

Nna Cre Properties LLP, Mumbai vs. ACIT 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1499/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Nna Cre Properties Llp बिधम/ Acit-20(2) B-4101, B-Wing, One Room No.217, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Avighna Park, Mahadeo Piramal Chambers, Palav Marg, Curry Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400012. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakfn0759M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2022 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)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 23.06.2021 For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: - “1. Learned Ao Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Issuing Notice U/S 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) Without Application Of Mind, As The Same Is Issued Without Mentioning That Whether It Is Levied For Concealment Of The Particulars Of Income Or Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income. It Is Note Know To Appellate As To Under Which Ground The Penalty Is Proposed To Be Levied. Hon. Cit(A) Has Also Erred In Not Considering The Same. 2. Learned Ao Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.1,29,503/- On Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.4,19,102/-

…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. Further, we take note of the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory reported in (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) and the Department’s SLP against it has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. We also find that Hon’ble Karnataka…

Vinati Saraf Mutreja, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT -26(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amrjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1363/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Vinati Saraf Mutreja बिधम/ Acit-26(3) 302, 3Rd Floor, Vinayak 501, 5Th Floor, Vs. Heights, Nargis Dutt Road, Pratyakshkar Building, Bandra (W), Mumbai- Bkc, Bandra (E), 400050. Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Artps7699M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Siddharth Kothari Revenue By: Vranda U Matkari (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2022 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)-38, Mumbai Dated 20.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Against The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Levying Penalty Of Rs.6,75,938/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Which According To Assessee, Was Based On A Defective Notice & So It Was Bad In Law. 3. The Brief Fact Of The Case Is That The Assessee Had Paid Donation Of Rs.12,50,000/- To M/S. Human Genetics & Population (Hgp) U/S 35(1)(Ii) Of The Act & After Making Donation, The Assessee Claimed Weighted Deduction Of Rs.21,87,500/-. Later, The Ao Received Information From Ddit(Inv.), Unit Kolkata About Beneficiaries Of Bogus Donation To M/S. Hgp & As Per The Information, The Assessee

…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. Further, we take note of the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory reported in (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) and the Department’s SLP against it has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. We also find that Hon’ble Karnataka…

Shantilal Balubhai Parekh, Mumbai vs. NFAC Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.580/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Shantilal Balubhai Parekh बिधम/ Ito, Ward 3(4) 24, Gaurav Apartment, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Vs. Nahur Village Road, Above Canara Bank, Sarvoday Nagar, Mulund Murbad Road, Kalyan, West, Mumbai-400080. Maharashtra -421301. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Akcpp9255C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Radha Halbe Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Ojha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2022 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) (Nfac), Delhi Dated 09.07.2021 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of Ld. Cit(A), Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act To The Tune Of Rs.83,282/-. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Ms. Radha Halbe Brought To Our Notice That The Impugned Penalty Levied By Ao Is Bad In Law For Issuing Defective Notice Before Levying The Penalty. To Buttress This Contention, She Drew Our Attention To The Show Cause Notice (Scn) Issued By The Ao U/S 274 Read With Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated

…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. 4. We note that the notice in the instant case was issued by AO u/s 274 r.w. Section 271(1) (c) of the Act dated 19.01.2015 calling upon the assessee to show cause as to why the penalty should not be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the following faults viz, “to have concealed the partic…

Kedaara Capital Advisors LLP, Mumbai vs. ACIT 17(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…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. 4. We note that the notice in the instant case was issued by AO u/s 274 r.w. Section 271 of the Act dated 05.03.2016 calling upon the assessee to show cause as to why the penalty should not be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the following faults viz “to have concealed the particulars of…

Nandivardhan Construction Pvt Ltd., Thane vs. DCIT CC-2, Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4973/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिधम/ Nandivardhan Construction Dcit, Central Circle-2 Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 201, 2Nd Floor, Oasis Silver Wagle Industrial Estate Stone, Near Gajanan (West), Thane-400604. Maharaj Temple Ram Maruti Road, Thane-West, Thane- 400601. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn1260G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Prateek Jain Revenue By: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.02.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2007-08 In Which The Penalty Levied By Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant’S Case & In Law, The Notice Issued Under Section 274 Read With Section 271(1)(C) By The Ld. Assessing Officer Without Recording Any Satisfaction Is Bad In Law & The Consequential Penalty Order

…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…

Memon Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5990/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Memon Co-Op Bank Ltd बिधम/ Dcit-1(3)(2) C/O Memon Co-Op Bank Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Ltd, Patel & Sony Arcade, Mumbai-400020. 234 Bellasis Road, Nagpada, Mumbai-400008. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaat0066G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Pankaj Toprani Revenue By: Ajay Chandra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 17.07.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-03, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2009-10 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “A. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.70,61,337/- U/S 271(1)(C). B. The Learned C.1.T. (A) Failed To Appreciate That:

…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 ITA. No.5990/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2009-10 had come up before our coordinate Bench…

Sankalp Retail Value Stores Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 13(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2426/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Sankalp Retail Value Stores बिधम/ Acit-13(2)(1) Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- Vs. 401, Rajiv Premji Apts., S.V. 400020. Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai-400092. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapc5897R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, (Jm): The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.12.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

…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…

M/S. Chemstar Organics (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(1), Baroda

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2493 & 2494/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 1998-99 & 2010-11) बिधम/ M/S. Chemstar Organics (India) Dcit, Central Circle-1(1) Ltd. Baroda. Vs. 4Th Floor, Pnb House, Sir P. M. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc9210F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satish Modi Revenue By: Shri Mehul Jain (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -01, Baroda [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 1998-99 & 2010-11. Ita. No.2493/Ahd/2014 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 09.06.2014 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -01, Baroda [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.1998-99 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

…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. A.Ys.1998-99 & 2010-11 CIT-DR and find that a similar issue had come up before our coordinate Bench in the case o…