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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Kaushalya?

511 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Kaushalya (216 ITR 660), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Kaushalya come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 274, Section 271(1)(c), Section 139(1), Section 132, Section 143(1), Section 143(3).

CIT v. Kaushalya (216 ITR 660)

ACIT Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6971/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 153ASection 271(1)

…efore, mere failure to specify in specific terms, or failure in striking out the requisite in subclause in a notice does not make the penalty action bad. Ld. CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya 216 ITR 660 in support of his finding that non-striking off of“inaccurate particulars” or “concealed income” in the notice does not merit consideration to hold that the learned Assessing Officer did not assume jurisdiction validly. Page 3 of 8 6. Assessee preferred this appeal against such findings of Ld. CIT(A) and it could be seen from the grounds of app…

Sujata Surendra Khandekar, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4135/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4135/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Sujata Surendra Khandekar बिधम/ Ito 19(3)(4) 6. Federation House, 4Th Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Floor, 24/30, A.P. Marg, Mumbai-400007. Opp. Metro, Mumbai- 400002. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abbpk9552B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Hoshang B. Irani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/01/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 08.05.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09 In Which The Penalty Levied By Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals)-52, Mumbai Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer, Mumbai In

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…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…

Smt. Neha Gopal Sharma, Mumbai vs. ITO 29(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 417/MUM/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 417/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Smt. Neha Gopal Sharma बिधम/ Ito-29(2)(4) Room No.205, C-10, 2Nd 1501, B Wing, Tower-1, Vs. Vikas Paradise, Lbs Marg, Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mulund (W), Mumbai- Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. 400080. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aobps8089J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Ms. Ekta Dodhia Revenue By: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 23.10.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-40, Mumbai [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. The Learned Cit(A)-40 Has Erred In Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Learned Assessing Officer Without Appreciating The Fact Of The Case In The Right Perspective.

For Appellant: Ms. Ekta DodhiaFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 27Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 274Section 68

…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 ITA. No.4…

Atul Gupta, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 28, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 563/KOL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…1 Atul Gupta, AY 2009-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA (सम")"ी पी. एम.जगताप,उपा"य" एवं "ी ए.ट". वक","या"यक सद"य) [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President (KZ) &Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 563/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Atul Gupta Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (PAN: ADYPG1690F) Circle-28, Kolkata Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 30.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement 10.12.2021 For the Appellant Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate For the Respondent Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, DR ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the or…

Shri Arun Kumar Gupta, West Singhbhum vs. ACIT Central Circle, Jamshedpur

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 85/RAN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

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. Kaus…

Shri Arun Kumar Gupta, West Singhbhum vs. ACIT Central Circle, Jamshedpur

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 84/RAN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

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. Kaus…

Shri Arun Kumar Gupta, West Singhbhum vs. ACIT Central Circle, Jamshedpur

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 83/RAN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

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. Kaus…

Mr. Amrish Manoj Dhupelia, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(1), Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4636/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 4636/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 4637/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 4638/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) Mr. Ambrish Manoj Dhupelia The Dy. Commissioner Of 12-13, Esplanade, 3 R D Floor, 3, Income Tax, Central Circle- A.K. Nayak Marg, Fort, 1(1), Old Cgo Building, फनाभ/ 9Th Mumbai-400 001 Annexe, Floor, Room No.903, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacw1258P अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri K. Shvram, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Brajendra Kumar, Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 14.09.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 14.09.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Appeals Of The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-47, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal Nos. Cit(A)-47/10023/18-19, Cit(A)- 47/10015/18-19, Cit(A)-47/10042/18-19, Cit(A)-47/10026/18-19 Vide Dated 30.05.2019. The Assessments Were Framed By The Dy.

For Appellant: Shri K. Shvram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “A” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष एविं श्री भनोज कुभाय अग्रवार, रेखा दस्म के भक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND SRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आमकय अऩीर िं./ ITA No. 4636/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) आमकय अऩीर िं./ ITA No. 4637/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) आमकय अऩीर िं./ ITA No. 4638/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) Mr. Ambrish Manoj Dhupelia The Dy. Commissioner of 12-13, Esplanade, 3 r d Floor, 3, Income Tax, Central Circle- A.K. Nayak Marg, Fort, 1(1), Old…

Ishita Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2789/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Senior DR

Section 143Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ies put-forth to him relied upon various decisions viz. Vijay Aggarwal vs. DCIT 2019-TIOL-1628-ITAT-DEL, Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 99 taxmann.com 152 (SC), Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 407 (Madras), CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom.), New Holland Tractors (India) (O) Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 275 CTR 291 (Delhi), Trimuti Engineering Works vs. ITO (2012) 138 ITD 189 (Delhi), Hybrid Rice International Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT in ITA No.285/Del/2007, Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation vs. DCIT (2017) 166 ITD 113 (Mumbai), DCIT vs. Shah Rukh Khan (2018) 93 taxmann.com 320 (…

Ashiana Family Trust, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 27(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5459/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri M. Balaganesh, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 5459/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2012-13) Ashiana Family Trust The Asst. Commissioner Of 13 Vasant Vihar Dr. Cg Road, Income Tax, Circle 27(1) 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi Chembur, Mumbai फनाभ/ Railway Station Complex Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा सिं./Pan No. Aabta6326J अऩीराथी की ओय से/ Appellant By : Dr. P Daniel, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Brajendra Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 24.06.2021 घोषणा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 31.08.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय ससिंह, उऩाध्मऺ के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-24, Mumbai, [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-24/Acit-27(1)/It-588/45/2018-19 Dated 14.06.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ward 17(2), Mumbai (In Short Dcit/ Ao) For The A.Y. 2012-13 Vide Order Dated 13.11.2014 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). The Penalty Was Levied By Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), Mumbai Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 28.05.2015. Ashiana Family Trust; Ay 12-13 The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Order Of 2. Cit(A) Confirming The Levy Of Penalty By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act, Even Though There Is Defect In The Notice Issued Under Section 274 Read With Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. For This, Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground No.1: -

For Appellant: Dr. P Daniel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…practice, to be particular, of issuing notices in printed form without deleting or striking off the inapplicable parts of that generic notice.” 5. We noted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has taken cognizance of the decision of CIT v. Smt. Kaushalya [1994] 216 ITR 660 (Bom) and CIT v. Samson Perinchery [2017] 392 ITR 4 (Bom.). 6. Hence, in this case also admittedly, there is no striking off of the irrelevant portion of the notice, the penalty proceedings is vitiated. Hence, we quash the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and reverse the order of Commissioner of Income Ta…

Manav Packaging Industries Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 11(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2420/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe

Section 143Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43B

…ictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh (supra), we note that Division Bench of Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay at Goa found a direct conflict between the decisions in the cases of Goa Dourado Promotions and Smt. Kaushalya reported in 216 ITR 660 (Bom.). The Hon‟ble Division Bench at Goa vide order dated 28-02-2020 prayed Hon‟ble Chief Justice to resolve the issue by referring it to larger Bench. The Division Bench framed the issue in question as under : “[In] the assessment order or the order made under sections 143(3) and 153C of the IT Act, [when] the Assessing Officer has clearly reco…

Manav Packaging Industries Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 11(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2419/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe

Section 143Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43B

…ictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh (supra), we note that Division Bench of Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay at Goa found a direct conflict between the decisions in the cases of Goa Dourado Promotions and Smt. Kaushalya reported in 216 ITR 660 (Bom.). The Hon‟ble Division Bench at Goa vide order dated 28-02-2020 prayed Hon‟ble Chief Justice to resolve the issue by referring it to larger Bench. The Division Bench framed the issue in question as under : “[In] the assessment order or the order made under sections 143(3) and 153C of the IT Act, [when] the Assessing Officer has clearly reco…

Manav Packaging Industries Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 11(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2418/PUN/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe

Section 143Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43B

…ictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh (supra), we note that Division Bench of Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay at Goa found a direct conflict between the decisions in the cases of Goa Dourado Promotions and Smt. Kaushalya reported in 216 ITR 660 (Bom.). The Hon‟ble Division Bench at Goa vide order dated 28-02-2020 prayed Hon‟ble Chief Justice to resolve the issue by referring it to larger Bench. The Division Bench framed the issue in question as under : “[In] the assessment order or the order made under sections 143(3) and 153C of the IT Act, [when] the Assessing Officer has clearly reco…

Rajmata Jijabai Co.Op.Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Warad 15 (1)(3) Now ITO Ward 26 (2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6694/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 6694/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2007-08) Rajmata Jijabai Co-Op Hsg. The Income Tax Officer, Society Ltd. Ward, Mumbai फनाभ/ 28, Veena Beena, Gurunank Road, Bandra West, Vs. Mumbai-400 050 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaaar2683R अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri M. Subramanian, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Bharat Andhale, Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 26.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-38, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-38/Ito.15(1)(3)/It.10814/2014-15 Vide Dated 24.07.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Rajmata Jijabai Co-Op Hsg. Society Ltd.; Ay 07-08 Tax Officer, Ward 15(1)(3), Mumbai (In Short Ito/ Ao) For The A.Y. 2007-08 Vide Order Dated 27.12.2010 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’). The Penalty Is Levied By Ito, Ward 15(1)(3), Mumbai Under Section 271(1)(C) Vide Order Dated 26.03.2014. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Levying The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. For This, Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground No.1:-

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale, DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…arhan A. Shaikh V. ACIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom), wherein it is held that the assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice. An omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness. CIT v. Kaushalya (Smt ) (1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bom)(HC) distinguished Ventura Textiles Ltd. v. CIT [2020] 426 ITR 478 (Bom)(HC) distinguished. Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC) followed. As the issue is covered by the decision Bombay Rajmata Jijabai Co-op Hsg. Society Ltd.; AY 07-08 High Court decision in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh (Supra), we delete the penalty and all…