CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery

Kasturilal Sardarilal Luthra, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2561 & 2562/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2005-06 Shri Kasturilal Sardarilal Luthra, Urmil, Shrin Meadows, Gangapur Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422011 …. Pan: Aafpl4629P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle 1, Nashik

…roceedings for one limb and levies penalty for both limbs; we find no merit in levy of aforesaid penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. 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. Accordingly, we delete the penalty levied ITA Nos.2561 & 2562/PUN/2016 4 Kasturilal Sardarilal Luthra under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in b…

Kasturilal Sardarilal Luthra, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2561 & 2562/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2005-06 Shri Kasturilal Sardarilal Luthra, Urmil, Shrin Meadows, Gangapur Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422011 …. Pan: Aafpl4629P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle 1, Nashik

…roceedings for one limb and levies penalty for both limbs; we find no merit in levy of aforesaid penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. 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. Accordingly, we delete the penalty levied ITA Nos.2561 & 2562/PUN/2016 4 Kasturilal Sardarilal Luthra under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in b…

Rajendra Mithailal Agarwal, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Nashik

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

…e to be set- aside on the legal issue. Highlighting the legal requirement of making a specific reference to the specific limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act and relying on various binding judgments in the case CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) as well as the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565, Ld. Counsel demonstrated that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law and the same is wrongly upheld by the CIT(A). 11. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue heavily relied on the o…

Rajendra Mithailal Agarwal, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Nashik

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

…e to be set- aside on the legal issue. Highlighting the legal requirement of making a specific reference to the specific limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act and relying on various binding judgments in the case CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) as well as the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565, Ld. Counsel demonstrated that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law and the same is wrongly upheld by the CIT(A). 11. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue heavily relied on the o…

Rajendra Mithailal Agarwal, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Nashik

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

…e to be set- aside on the legal issue. Highlighting the legal requirement of making a specific reference to the specific limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act and relying on various binding judgments in the case CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) as well as the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565, Ld. Counsel demonstrated that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law and the same is wrongly upheld by the CIT(A). 11. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue heavily relied on the o…

M/S. Varsha Forgings Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.09/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Varsha Forgings Ltd., 294, Sindh Co-Op. Hsg. Society Ltd., Ganeshkhind Road, Aundh, Pune-411007. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaacv9485B …. Vs. Acit, Circle-1(2), …. ""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Ghai सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-5, Pune Dated 08.09.2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “The Following Grounds Are Taken Without Prejudice To Each Other - On Facts & In Law, 1) The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Order. 2) The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That, A. The Appellant Had Filed The Revised Return Of Income. B. The Appellant Offered To Tax The Alleged Purchases By Filing The Revised Return As The Party From Whom The Purchases Were Made Was Absconding & Not Traceable. C. The Appellant Did Produce All Relevant Documentary Evidences Supporting Purchases, Receipt Of Goods, Payments, Address Of The Party, Pan Etc. D. The Purchases Were Very Negligible & Form 0.004 % Of Total Purchases Made During The Year. E. The Quantum Involved Being Very Meagre The Appellant Filed Revised Return By Offering Additional Income.

…gs u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4 11. Highlighting the legal requirement of making a specific reference to the specific limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act and following the various binding judgments in the case CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) as well as the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565, we find the order of the CIT(A) should have to be set-aside on the legal issue. Hence, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law and the same is wrongly upheld by the CIT(A). 12. The ld.…

Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…271(1)(c) of the Act is also not clear as to the limb on which penalty has to be levied on the assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee relied on the present judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery reported as 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has followed the view of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory reported in 359 ITR 565(Kar.) wherein it was observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had held in T. Ashok Pai Vs. CIT reported as 292 ITR 11 (SC) that act of ‘concealment of income’ and act…

Laxman Raghunath Ingale, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act did not specify on which limb penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is levied. The ld. AR of the assessee relied on the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery reported as 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has followed the view of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory reported in 359 ITR 565(Kar.) wherein it was observed that the 3 A.Y.2008-09 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had held in T. Ashok Pai Vs. CIT reported as 292 ITR 11 (SC) that act of ‘concealment of i…

Babu Sayabanna Mehetre, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.530/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Babu Sayabanna Mehetre, Office No.8, Deep Laxmi Building, Near Power House Chowk, Chinchwad Gaon, Pune-411033. Pan : Abapm3697A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-9, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-13, Pune Dated 27.12.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee Is As Under :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Assessing Officer Have Erred In Levying Penalty Of Rs.36,45,400/- By Invoking Provisions Of Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, By Disregarding Appellant’S Contention In This Regard.” 4. Briefly Stated The Relevant Facts Include That The Assessee Is A Promoter, Builder & Developer & Is Engaged In The Business Of Civil

…o be set- aside on the legal issue. Highlighting the legal requirement of making a specific reference to the specific limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act and relying on various binding judgments in the case CIT Vs. Shri 4 Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) as well as the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565, Ld. Counsel demonstrated that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law and the same is wrongly upheld by the CIT(A). 11. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue heavily relied on the…

Ina Bearings India Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.147 & 149/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Ina Bearings India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.A3, Talegaon Industrial Area, Navalkh Umbre, Tal. Maval Talegaon, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 410507 …. Pan: Aaaci7163H Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11, Pune

…UN/2017 3 proper show cause being given to the assessee, there is no merit in levy of aforesaid penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 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. Accordingly, we delete the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in both the appeals. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee in b…

Ina Bearings India Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.147 & 149/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Ina Bearings India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.A3, Talegaon Industrial Area, Navalkh Umbre, Tal. Maval Talegaon, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 410507 …. Pan: Aaaci7163H Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11, Pune

…UN/2017 3 proper show cause being given to the assessee, there is no merit in levy of aforesaid penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 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. Accordingly, we delete the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in both the appeals. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee in b…

Mahatma Phule Anusuchit Jati Jamati Shetkari Sahakari Soot Girniniyamit, Solapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Solapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.521/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mahatma Phule Anusuchit Jati Jamati Shetkari Sahakari Soot Girniniyamit, Gat No.71A, Sharda Nagar, Sohale Road, Wagholi, Solapur-413253. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaaam1598A बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle-1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Solapur. Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.04.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-7, Pune Dated 12.02.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Levying The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) A Sum Of Rs.52,62,990/- Without Specifying The Limb Under Which Penalty Is Levied & Therefore Entire Penalty Order Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Struck Down. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Lower Authorities Have Erred In Levying The Penalty Of Rs.52,61,990/- By Invoking Provisions Of Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Disregarding Appellant’S Contention In This Regard. The Appellant Craves For Leave To Add, Alter, Modify, Delete Above Ground Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing, In The Interest Of Natural Justice.”

…e to be set- aside on the legal issue. Highlighting the legal requirement of making a specific reference to the specific limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act and relying on various binding judgments in the case CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) as well as the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565, Ld. Counsel demonstrated that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law and the same is wrongly upheld by the CIT(A). 12. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue heavily relied on the o…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Ghanshyam J. Sukhwani (HUF), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.773/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pune. बनाम / V/S. Ghanshyam J. Sukhwani (Huf), 32, Sukhwani Chamber, Pimpri, Pune-411008. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aabhs9560G Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Garg Assessee By : Shri Vipin Gujrathi सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.04.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-9, Pune Dated 22.12.2016 For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under :- “1) On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 When The Assessing Officer Has Initiated Penalty After Observing That Both The Limbs Of The Default U/S 271(1)(C) Were Operative In The Instant Case. 2) On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 When The Assessee Has Concealed Particulars Of Income, I.E. Concealed True Profit, By Way Of Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income, I.E. Shifting Expenses Of 80Ib Projects To Non 80Ib Projects, Which The Assessing Officer Has Correctly Mentioned In The Assessment Order While Initiating The Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3) The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) May Be Vacated & That Of The Assessing Officer Be Restored.

…ve to be dismissed on the legal issue. Highlighting the legal requirement of making a specific reference to the specific limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act and relying on various binding judgments in the case CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) as well as the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565, Ld. Counsel demonstrated that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law and the same is rightly deleted/cancelled by the CIT(A). 11. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue heavily reli…