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 366,339 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

Shyamal Kumar Roy, Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(1), Durgapur

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 482/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…1 ITA Nos. 481-484/Kol/2019 Shyamal Kumar roy, AYs-2011-12 to 2014-15 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम") "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. Nos. 481-484/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2014-15 Shyamal Kumar Roy Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-1(1), Durgapur (PAN: AFGPR1544F) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 16.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement 20.12.2019 For the Appellant N o n e For the Respondent Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri A. T. V…

Shyamal Kumar Roy, Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(1), Durgapur

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 481/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…1 ITA Nos. 481-484/Kol/2019 Shyamal Kumar roy, AYs-2011-12 to 2014-15 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम") "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. Nos. 481-484/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2014-15 Shyamal Kumar Roy Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-1(1), Durgapur (PAN: AFGPR1544F) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 16.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement 20.12.2019 For the Appellant N o n e For the Respondent Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri A. T. V…

Mahua Lahiri, Kolkata vs. I.T.O.Ward-31(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1712/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2014-15

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

…1 Mahua Lahiri, AY- 2014-15 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C(SMC)” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C(SMC)” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम") "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mahua Lahiri Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-31(1), Kolkata (PAN: AAWPL3427A) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 28.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement 20.12.2019 For the Appellant Shri G. Banerjee, FCA For the Respondent Shri Jayanta Khanua, JCIT, Sr. DR ORDER This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-9, Kolkata dated 30-05-2019 for the assessment year 2014-15…

Sapna N. Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (3) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5017/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5017/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Sapna N. Jhaveri Ito-19(3)(2) 1202, 12Th Floor, Veena Matru Mandir, Mumbai- Vs. Apartment, 198, Walkeshwar 400007. Road, Near Teen Batti, Mumbai-400006. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aiipj4271G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Shri V. Vinod Kumar (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.05.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2009-10 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar (Sr. AR)
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…e decision of the Tribunal holding levy of penalty in such circumstances being bad, has been approved. 11. Apart from the aforesaid, the ld. CIT-DR made an argument based on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya & Others, 216 ITR 660 (Bom.) to canvass support for his plea that non-striking off of the irrelevant portion of notice would not invalidate the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have carefully considered the said argument set-up by the ld. CIT-DR and find that a similar issue had come up before our coordinate Bench in the case of Dr. Sarita Milind Dav…

Smt. Manjeet Kaur Sran, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 2643/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Ms. Ashisha Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Verma, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…nd that on facts the said question does not arise for consideration as well as for the reasons set out by us in the preceding paragraphs. In the result, Tax Case Appeals are dismissed. No costs.” 3. CIT Vs Smt. Kaushalya [1994] 75 Taxman 549 (Bombay)/[1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bombay) In the above case, IAC had issued show-cause notice dated 28-3-1972 under section 274(2). Assessee had no knowledge of exact charge against him. Not only word 'or' had been used between two groups of charges but there was use of word 'deliberately' also. IAC imposed penalty of Rs. 13,000 for assessment year 1967-68 and ITO imposed penal…

Smt. Manjeet Kaur Sran, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 2640/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Ms. Ashisha Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Verma, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…nd that on facts the said question does not arise for consideration as well as for the reasons set out by us in the preceding paragraphs. In the result, Tax Case Appeals are dismissed. No costs.” 3. CIT Vs Smt. Kaushalya [1994] 75 Taxman 549 (Bombay)/[1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bombay) In the above case, IAC had issued show-cause notice dated 28-3-1972 under section 274(2). Assessee had no knowledge of exact charge against him. Not only word 'or' had been used between two groups of charges but there was use of word 'deliberately' also. IAC imposed penalty of Rs. 13,000 for assessment year 1967-68 and ITO imposed penal…

Smt. Manjeet Kaur Sran, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 2639/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Ms. Ashisha Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Verma, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…nd that on facts the said question does not arise for consideration as well as for the reasons set out by us in the preceding paragraphs. In the result, Tax Case Appeals are dismissed. No costs.” 3. CIT Vs Smt. Kaushalya [1994] 75 Taxman 549 (Bombay)/[1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bombay) In the above case, IAC had issued show-cause notice dated 28-3-1972 under section 274(2). Assessee had no knowledge of exact charge against him. Not only word 'or' had been used between two groups of charges but there was use of word 'deliberately' also. IAC imposed penalty of Rs. 13,000 for assessment year 1967-68 and ITO imposed penal…

Smt. Manjeet Kaur Sran, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 2642/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Ms. Ashisha Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Verma, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…nd that on facts the said question does not arise for consideration as well as for the reasons set out by us in the preceding paragraphs. In the result, Tax Case Appeals are dismissed. No costs.” 3. CIT Vs Smt. Kaushalya [1994] 75 Taxman 549 (Bombay)/[1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bombay) In the above case, IAC had issued show-cause notice dated 28-3-1972 under section 274(2). Assessee had no knowledge of exact charge against him. Not only word 'or' had been used between two groups of charges but there was use of word 'deliberately' also. IAC imposed penalty of Rs. 13,000 for assessment year 1967-68 and ITO imposed penal…

Smt. Manjeet Kaur Sran, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 2641/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Ms. Ashisha Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Verma, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…nd that on facts the said question does not arise for consideration as well as for the reasons set out by us in the preceding paragraphs. In the result, Tax Case Appeals are dismissed. No costs.” 3. CIT Vs Smt. Kaushalya [1994] 75 Taxman 549 (Bombay)/[1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bombay) In the above case, IAC had issued show-cause notice dated 28-3-1972 under section 274(2). Assessee had no knowledge of exact charge against him. Not only word 'or' had been used between two groups of charges but there was use of word 'deliberately' also. IAC imposed penalty of Rs. 13,000 for assessment year 1967-68 and ITO imposed penal…

Kasturlal Sheth, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax-17(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 4463/MUM/2018[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4463 To 4466/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 1997-98 To 2001-02) बिधम/ Kasturlal Sheth Joint Commissioner Of 12, Shreyas, 2Nd Floor, Income Tax-17(2) Vs. Opposite, Air India Building, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagps7531Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Jotwani (Ar) Revenue By: Mrs. (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/11/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 1997-98 To 2001-02 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jotwani (AR)For Respondent: Mrs. (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…e decision of the Tribunal holding levy of penalty in such circumstances being bad, has been approved. 11. Apart from the aforesaid, the ld. CIT-DR made an argument based on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya & Others, 216 ITR 660 (Bom.) to canvass support for his plea that non-striking off of the irrelevant portion of notice would not invalidate the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have carefully considered the said argument set-up by the ld. CIT-DR and find that a similar issue had come up before our coordinate Bench in the case of Dr. Sarita Milind Dav…

Shirish Chandrakant Shah, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 2(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1170/MUM/2018[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2019AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1170, 1172, 1173 & 1174/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 1991-92 To 1994-95)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, AR byFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 245C(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ealment. In case 'inaccuracy' does not result in concealment such inaccuracy is of no harm. The penalty is attracted only when 'inaccuracy' results in concealment and thus not full and true income being filed/disclosed by assessee. Reliance on Smt. Kaushalya 216 ITR 660 - (Bombay H.C):- In this case on the similar facts, notice was held as valid by Hon'ble Bombay H.C, the jurisdictional High Court. Distinguishing SSA's Emerald Meadows:- In Karnataka H.C. decision, the SLP of revenue was dismissed as on the fact that decision of this H.C. was based on earlier order of same H.C, no question of law was held to be…

Hiralal Kalpur Gupta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(5), Kalyan

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

ITA 7446/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7446/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ Hiralal Kalpu Gupta Ito Ward 2(5) 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, Near Ladi Naka Bus Stand, Vs. Kalyan Badlapur Road, Wayale Nagar, Kalyan (W), Ambarnath-421505, Dist: Dist: Thane. Thane. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ablpg6893P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Mrs. Jothilakshmi Nayak (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/11/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 10.10.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Order To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Jothilakshmi Nayak (DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…e decision of the Tribunal holding levy of penalty in such circumstances being bad, has been approved. 11. Apart from the aforesaid, the ld. CIT-DR made an argument based on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya & Others, 216 ITR 660 (Bom.) to canvass support for his plea that non-striking off of the irrelevant portion of notice would not invalidate the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have carefully considered the said argument set-up by the ld. CIT-DR and find that a similar issue had come up before our coordinate Bench in the case of Dr. Sarita Milind Dav…

Ravi Goenka, Mumbai vs. ACIT 13(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4253/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4253/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बिधम/ Ravi Goenka Acit-13(2) Room No.418, 4Th Floor, 15 Shirin Chambes, 348/50 Vs. Samuel Street Vadgadi, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Mumbai-400003. Road, Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpg9107E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Renu Kapoor Revenue By: Ms. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (Sr Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/11/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 05.04.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, 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.

For Appellant: Ms. Renu KapoorFor Respondent: Ms. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (Sr
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271

…e decision of the Tribunal holding levy of penalty in such circumstances being bad, has been approved. 11. Apart from the aforesaid, the ld. CIT-DR made an argument based on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya & Others, 216 ITR 660 (Bom.) to canvass support for his plea that non-striking off of the irrelevant portion of notice would not invalidate the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have carefully considered the said argument set-up by the ld. CIT-DR and find that a similar issue had come up before our coordinate Bench in the case of Dr. Sarita Milind Dav…

Mr. Vijay Agarwal, Meerut vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5433/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5432/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 5433/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Mr. Vijay Agarwal, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income C/O M/S Kashyap & Co., Cas, Tax, Central Circle-1, 214, Citi Centre, Begum Faridabad Bridge Road, Meerut-250001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aazpa6461C Assessee By : Sh. P. S. Kashyap, Ca Revenue By : Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.11.2019

For Appellant: Sh. P. S. Kashyap, CAFor Respondent: Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 24Section 271(1)(c)Section 80C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 5432/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 ITA No. 5433/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Mr. Vijay Agarwal, Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income C/o M/s Kashyap & Co., CAs, Tax, Central Circle-1, 214, Citi Centre, Begum Faridabad Bridge Road, Meerut-250001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAZPA6461C Assessee by : Sh. P. S. Kashyap, CA Revenue by : Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 05.11.2019 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Acco…

Mr. Vijay Agarwal, Meerut vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5432/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5432/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 5433/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Mr. Vijay Agarwal, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income C/O M/S Kashyap & Co., Cas, Tax, Central Circle-1, 214, Citi Centre, Begum Faridabad Bridge Road, Meerut-250001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aazpa6461C Assessee By : Sh. P. S. Kashyap, Ca Revenue By : Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.11.2019

For Appellant: Sh. P. S. Kashyap, CAFor Respondent: Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 24Section 271(1)(c)Section 80C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 5432/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 ITA No. 5433/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Mr. Vijay Agarwal, Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income C/o M/s Kashyap & Co., CAs, Tax, Central Circle-1, 214, Citi Centre, Begum Faridabad Bridge Road, Meerut-250001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAZPA6461C Assessee by : Sh. P. S. Kashyap, CA Revenue by : Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 05.11.2019 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Acco…

M/S. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd.(Hudco), New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1162/DEL/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

…ble Supreme Court in the case of Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons v First AddllTO [1967] 63 ITR 638 in which it was held that a mistake in the notice does not invalidate the penalty proceedings. 4. CIT Vs Smt. Kaushalva [1994] 75 Taxman 549 (Bombay)/[1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bombay): In this case, the IAC had issued show-cause notice dated 28- 3-1972 under Section 274(2). Assessee had no knowledge of exact charge against him. Not only word 'or' had been used between two groups of charges but there was use of word 'deliberately' also. The lAC imposed penalty of Rs. 13,000 for assessment year 1967-68 and ITO imposed p…

M/S. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd.(Hudco), New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1161/DEL/2011[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

…ble Supreme Court in the case of Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons v First AddllTO [1967] 63 ITR 638 in which it was held that a mistake in the notice does not invalidate the penalty proceedings. 4. CIT Vs Smt. Kaushalva [1994] 75 Taxman 549 (Bombay)/[1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bombay): In this case, the IAC had issued show-cause notice dated 28- 3-1972 under Section 274(2). Assessee had no knowledge of exact charge against him. Not only word 'or' had been used between two groups of charges but there was use of word 'deliberately' also. The lAC imposed penalty of Rs. 13,000 for assessment year 1967-68 and ITO imposed p…

M/S. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd.(Hudco), New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1160/DEL/2011[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

…ble Supreme Court in the case of Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons v First AddllTO [1967] 63 ITR 638 in which it was held that a mistake in the notice does not invalidate the penalty proceedings. 4. CIT Vs Smt. Kaushalva [1994] 75 Taxman 549 (Bombay)/[1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bombay): In this case, the IAC had issued show-cause notice dated 28- 3-1972 under Section 274(2). Assessee had no knowledge of exact charge against him. Not only word 'or' had been used between two groups of charges but there was use of word 'deliberately' also. The lAC imposed penalty of Rs. 13,000 for assessment year 1967-68 and ITO imposed p…

Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5234/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

…ble Supreme Court in the case of Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons v First AddllTO [1967] 63 ITR 638 in which it was held that a mistake in the notice does not invalidate the penalty proceedings. 4. CIT Vs Smt. Kaushalva [1994] 75 Taxman 549 (Bombay)/[1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bombay): In this case, the IAC had issued show-cause notice dated 28- 3-1972 under Section 274(2). Assessee had no knowledge of exact charge against him. Not only word 'or' had been used between two groups of charges but there was use of word 'deliberately' also. The lAC imposed penalty of Rs. 13,000 for assessment year 1967-68 and ITO imposed p…

Bhavesh Pravinchandra Sheth, Mumbai vs. ACIT 12(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 816/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bhaveshpravinchandrasheth Assistant Commissioner Of Sheth House, Gr. Floor, Vs. Income Tax- 12(2), Sandhurst Bridge, Room No. 123A, Opera House, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400007 Maharashi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan No. Aavps0801N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Biren Gubhawala, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Jyoti Lakshmi Nayak, Dr Last Date Of Hearing : 27/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Biren Gubhawala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Jyoti Lakshmi Nayak, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 BhaveshPravinchandraSheth Assistant Commissioner of Sheth House, Gr. Floor, Vs. Income Tax- 12(2), Sandhurst Bridge, Room No. 123A, Opera House, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400007 Maharashi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 PAN No. AAVPS0801N Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Biren Gubhawala, AR Revenue by : Ms. Jyoti Lakshmi Nayak, DR Last Date of Hearing : 27/09/2019 Date of pronouncement: 30/09/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an app…