CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery

392 ITR 4High Court2017#175 most cited

What is CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery authority for?

A penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act is unsustainable if it is initiated on one limb (e.g., concealment of income) but ultimately levied on the other limb (e.g., furnishing inaccurate particulars). This also applies if the initial penalty notice is vague or ambiguous regarding the specific charge.

417

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Samson Perinchery · 392 ITR 4 · Section 271(1)(c) · Section 274 · penalty · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · penalty initiated on one limb · penalty levied on other limb · vague penalty notice · penalty unsustainable · non-application of mind

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 143(3)Section 115JCSection 142(1)Section 115JBSection 143Section 14A

Issues it is cited on

section 274(1)section 271(l)section 271(l)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomefurnishing inaccurate particularsmalabar industrialsection 274penalty under section 271(1)(c)concealment of incomepenalty u/s 271(1)(c)non-application of mindlevy of penalty

Judgments citing CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery

Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3), Pune vs. Abhay Nayan Bhalerao, Pune

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2527/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

…tives for the assessee have stressed that the issue stands covered by number of decisions of Pune Bench of Tribunal, wherein this issue has been decided in line with the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom). In respect of appeals filed by Revenue, the assessee - respondent has similarly pleaded. However, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue has placed reliance on the orders of Assessing Officer / CIT(A) and find justification in the aforesaid levy of penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.1718 & 1…

Vyankatesh Co-Operative Bank Limited, Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle, Malegaon

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2494/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

…tives for the assessee have stressed that the issue stands covered by number of decisions of Pune Bench of Tribunal, wherein this issue has been decided in line with the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom). In respect of appeals filed by Revenue, the assessee - respondent has similarly pleaded. However, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue has placed reliance on the orders of Assessing Officer / CIT(A) and find justification in the aforesaid levy of penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.1718 & 1…

Raju Ramchandra Thakwani, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 4(5), Pune

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2353/PUN/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

…tives for the assessee have stressed that the issue stands covered by number of decisions of Pune Bench of Tribunal, wherein this issue has been decided in line with the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom). In respect of appeals filed by Revenue, the assessee - respondent has similarly pleaded. However, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue has placed reliance on the orders of Assessing Officer / CIT(A) and find justification in the aforesaid levy of penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.1718 & 1…

Thouwfeeq Fish Meal & Oil Company Pvt.Ltd, Ratnagiri vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ratnagiri Circle, Ratnagiri

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2323/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

…tives for the assessee have stressed that the issue stands covered by number of decisions of Pune Bench of Tribunal, wherein this issue has been decided in line with the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom). In respect of appeals filed by Revenue, the assessee - respondent has similarly pleaded. However, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue has placed reliance on the orders of Assessing Officer / CIT(A) and find justification in the aforesaid levy of penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.1718 & 1…

Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3), Pune vs. Rahul Nayan Bhalerao, Pune

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2237/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

…tives for the assessee have stressed that the issue stands covered by number of decisions of Pune Bench of Tribunal, wherein this issue has been decided in line with the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom). In respect of appeals filed by Revenue, the assessee - respondent has similarly pleaded. However, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue has placed reliance on the orders of Assessing Officer / CIT(A) and find justification in the aforesaid levy of penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.1718 & 1…

Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3), Pune vs. Rahul Nayan Bhalerao, Pune

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2236/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

…tives for the assessee have stressed that the issue stands covered by number of decisions of Pune Bench of Tribunal, wherein this issue has been decided in line with the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom). In respect of appeals filed by Revenue, the assessee - respondent has similarly pleaded. However, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue has placed reliance on the orders of Assessing Officer / CIT(A) and find justification in the aforesaid levy of penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.1718 & 1…

Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3), Pune vs. Rahul Nayan Bhalerao, Pune

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2235/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

…tives for the assessee have stressed that the issue stands covered by number of decisions of Pune Bench of Tribunal, wherein this issue has been decided in line with the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom). In respect of appeals filed by Revenue, the assessee - respondent has similarly pleaded. However, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue has placed reliance on the orders of Assessing Officer / CIT(A) and find justification in the aforesaid levy of penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.1718 & 1…

Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3), Pune vs. Rahul Nayan Bhalerao, Pune

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2234/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

…tives for the assessee have stressed that the issue stands covered by number of decisions of Pune Bench of Tribunal, wherein this issue has been decided in line with the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom). In respect of appeals filed by Revenue, the assessee - respondent has similarly pleaded. However, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue has placed reliance on the orders of Assessing Officer / CIT(A) and find justification in the aforesaid levy of penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.1718 & 1…

Lalchand Chhotalal Shah, Karad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Satara Circle, Satara

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2155/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

…tives for the assessee have stressed that the issue stands covered by number of decisions of Pune Bench of Tribunal, wherein this issue has been decided in line with the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom). In respect of appeals filed by Revenue, the assessee - respondent has similarly pleaded. However, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue has placed reliance on the orders of Assessing Officer / CIT(A) and find justification in the aforesaid levy of penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.1718 & 1…

Rakesh Lalchnand Shah, Karad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Satara Circle, Satara

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2154/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

…tives for the assessee have stressed that the issue stands covered by number of decisions of Pune Bench of Tribunal, wherein this issue has been decided in line with the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom). In respect of appeals filed by Revenue, the assessee - respondent has similarly pleaded. However, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue has placed reliance on the orders of Assessing Officer / CIT(A) and find justification in the aforesaid levy of penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.1718 & 1…

Jeetu Bhagchanad Khemani, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Nashik

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2114/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

…tives for the assessee have stressed that the issue stands covered by number of decisions of Pune Bench of Tribunal, wherein this issue has been decided in line with the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom). In respect of appeals filed by Revenue, the assessee - respondent has similarly pleaded. However, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue has placed reliance on the orders of Assessing Officer / CIT(A) and find justification in the aforesaid levy of penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.1718 & 1…

Bhatabhai Shankar Patel, Nandurbar vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 4, Dhule

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1913/PUN/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

…tives for the assessee have stressed that the issue stands covered by number of decisions of Pune Bench of Tribunal, wherein this issue has been decided in line with the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom). In respect of appeals filed by Revenue, the assessee - respondent has similarly pleaded. However, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue has placed reliance on the orders of Assessing Officer / CIT(A) and find justification in the aforesaid levy of penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.1718 & 1…

Dr. M. S. Hiremath, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -5, Pune

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1894/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

…tives for the assessee have stressed that the issue stands covered by number of decisions of Pune Bench of Tribunal, wherein this issue has been decided in line with the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom). In respect of appeals filed by Revenue, the assessee - respondent has similarly pleaded. However, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue has placed reliance on the orders of Assessing Officer / CIT(A) and find justification in the aforesaid levy of penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.1718 & 1…

M/S. Hotel Damini, Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Kudal

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1887/PUN/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

…tives for the assessee have stressed that the issue stands covered by number of decisions of Pune Bench of Tribunal, wherein this issue has been decided in line with the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom). In respect of appeals filed by Revenue, the assessee - respondent has similarly pleaded. However, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue has placed reliance on the orders of Assessing Officer / CIT(A) and find justification in the aforesaid levy of penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.1718 & 1…

Uttam Bhagwanrao Patil, Latur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 2(1), Pune

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1718/PUN/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

…tives for the assessee have stressed that the issue stands covered by number of decisions of Pune Bench of Tribunal, wherein this issue has been decided in line with the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom). In respect of appeals filed by Revenue, the assessee - respondent has similarly pleaded. However, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue has placed reliance on the orders of Assessing Officer / CIT(A) and find justification in the aforesaid levy of penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.1718 & 1…

Nawander Company, Latur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Latur Circle, Latur

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1683/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

…tives for the assessee have stressed that the issue stands covered by number of decisions of Pune Bench of Tribunal, wherein this issue has been decided in line with the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom). In respect of appeals filed by Revenue, the assessee - respondent has similarly pleaded. However, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue has placed reliance on the orders of Assessing Officer / CIT(A) and find justification in the aforesaid levy of penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.1718 & 1…

Periwinkle Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 10(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 3310/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kusum Bansal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…8.10.2016. It means that the AO is not sure about the charge on which he his levying the penalty or initiating the penalty. We find that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Samson Perinchery (2013) 392 ITR 4 (Bom). We noted that at the time of hearing the learned Sr. DR has not doubted the facts of the case but pointed out that there is due application of mind by the AO which can be demonstrated from the discussion in the assessment order and the order of CIT(A), wherein the reasons for the disallowance of depreciation, and recorded the satisfaction th…

Periwinkle Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 10 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 3309/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kusum Bansal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…8.10.2016. It means that the AO is not sure about the charge on which he his levying the penalty or initiating the penalty. We find that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Samson Perinchery (2013) 392 ITR 4 (Bom). We noted that at the time of hearing the learned Sr. DR has not doubted the facts of the case but pointed out that there is due application of mind by the AO which can be demonstrated from the discussion in the assessment order and the order of CIT(A), wherein the reasons for the disallowance of depreciation, and recorded the satisfaction th…

Flat World Processes P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-9(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal assessee is allowed

ITA 1494/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 1494/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) M/S Flat World Processes Pvt. The Income Tax Officer, Ltd. Ward 9(3)(3), Room No. 301, Level-3, Ceejay House, 471, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Shiv Sagar Estate, Dr. Annie Bhavan, M.K. Road, Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 018 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) .. स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aabcf1764G

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

…1.03.2017. It means that the AO is not sure about the charge on which he his levying the penalty or initiating the penalty. We find that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Samson Perinchery (2013) 392 ITR 4 (Bom),. We noted that at the time of hearing the learned Sr. DR has not doubted the facts of the case but pointed out that there is due application of mind by the AO which can be demonstrated from the discussion in the assessment order and the order of CIT(A), wherein if discussed the reasons for the disallowance of depreciation, he has recorded th…

Shriniwas Vitthal Siddam, Ahmednagar vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 287/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.287/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mr. Shriniwas Vitthal Siddam, G-123, Vyanktesh Engineering Works, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Midc, Ahmednagar - 414111 …. Pan: Bmgps1631C Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 2, Ahmednagar अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.K. Verma सुनवाई की तारीख / घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 17.07.2019 Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2019

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…failed to mention the specific charge and in the absence of the same, order passed for levy of penalty cannot stand. 3 Shriniwas V. Siddham 6. We find support from the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom), wherein it was held that where there is no proper satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings and in the absence of proper show cause notice to the assessee, there is no merit in levy of penalty. In the present case, Assessing Officer has failed to conclude which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act is applicable, hence order suffers fro…