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 367,164 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

The Hindustan Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT 13(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2742/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Hindustan Co- Acit-13(3), Aayakar Operative Bank Ltd. Bhavan, Mumbai. Vs. 4-A, Devi Galli, Baburao Bobde Marg, Lokhand Bazar, Mumbai-400009 Pan No. Aabat4355R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ravi Sawana, Ar Revenue By : Mr. D.G. Pansari, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Ravi Sawana, ARFor Respondent: Mr. D.G. Pansari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 27l

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Hindustan Co- ACIT-13(3), Aayakar Operative Bank Ltd. Bhavan, Mumbai. Vs. 4-A, Devi Galli, Baburao Bobde Marg, Lokhand Bazar, Mumbai-400009 PAN No. AABAT4355R Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Ravi Sawana, AR Revenue by : Mr. D.G. Pansari, DR Date of Hearing : 15/03/2019 Date of pronouncement : 25/03/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2010-11. The appeal is direct…

Review Ventures LLP (Formerly-Review Finance Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 4709/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abirama Karthikeyan, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…of particulars of income as well as for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 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 the…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Paresh Farms Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2023/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2023/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Aurangabad. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Paresh Farms Pvt. Ltd., “Akash” Paithan Road, Aurangabad. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aaccp3783C C.O. No.03/Pun/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2023/Pun/2016) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Paresh Farms Pvt. Ltd., “Akash” Paithan Road, Aurangabad. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaccp3783C बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Aurangabad. Assessee By : Shri N. R. Agarwal & Shri Vijay Saboo Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Ghai सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.03.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: The Appeal In Ita No.2023/Pun/2016 Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Aurangabad Dated 15.06.2016 For The 2 C.O. No.03/Pun/2019

For Appellant: Shri N. R. Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghai
Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…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). 10. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue heavily reli…

Chitralekha, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T.- 17(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 6849/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6849/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) M/S. Chitralekha Asstt. Commissioner Of 25, Andheri Industrial Estate Income Tax -17(1) बनाम/ Near Janki Centre Room No.117 Vs. Off Veera Desai Road Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053 Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafc-1152-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Appellant By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji-Ld.Ar Respondent By : Abhi Ram Kartikeyan - Ld.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 14/03/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 19/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Abhi Ram Kartikeyan - Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(iii)

…1 Chitralekha Assessment Year :2010-11 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “सी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6849/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) M/s. Chitralekha Asstt. Commissioner of 25, Andheri Industrial Estate Income Tax -17(1) बनाम/ Near Janki Centre Room No.117 Vs. Off Veera Desai Road Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053 Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN…

Sheetal Diamonds Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 5289/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Sheetal Diamonds Ltd. V. D.C.I.T Range – 8(3) Off No. 8, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Sitaram Niwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai-400 020 J.S.S. Road, Opera House Mumbai – 400 004 Pan: Aabcs 3005 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Satish R. Mody Department By : Shri A.B. Koli

For Appellant: Shri Satish R. ModyFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…g the specific charge in the notice initiating penalty proceedings for inaccurate particulars of income in the Assessment Order and the Coordinate Bench considering the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Samson Perinchery [392 ITR 4] and also various decisions held that action of the Assessing Officer in non-striking off relevant clause in the notice shows that the charge being made against the assessee is not firm therefore proceedings suffer from non-compliance with principles of natural justice in as much as the Assessing Officer himself is not sure of the charge and the as…

Prakash Raj Bhansali, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 508/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. Ground No. 1 Is Regarding Validity Of Penalty Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Ground Of Defective Initiation Of Proceedings

For Appellant: Shri H.M. Singhvi (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (JCIT)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…articulars of income carry different connotations. Therefore, the AO is required to make specific charges on which the penalty was intended to be imposed. He has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Samson Perinchery 392 ITR 4. The ld. AR has then referred to various decisions of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal on the point that penalty order passed by the AO based on different charges in the show cause notice is not valid. 3. On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that the AO in the assessment order has recorded the satisfaction that it is a clear case of conce…

M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/PUN/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pramod AchuthanFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Haldar
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “बी” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 290/PUN/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/s. Honeywell Automation India Limited. 56 & 57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411 013. PAN : AAACT3904F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11, Pune. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pramod Achuthan Revenue by : Shri Abhijit Haldar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 28.02.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Dat…

Nilesh Subhash Chopda, Ahmednagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 2088/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar
Section 133ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…is a direct decision by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court on the issue, the same has been respectfully followed. In so far as reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Samson Perinchery reported as 392 ITR 4 is concerned, it is on a different issue and does not deal with ambiguity of charge in the notice issued u/s. 274 of the Act. Hence, the same would not support the cause of assessee. Consequently, the ground No. 1 raised in the appeal by the assessee is dismissed. 9. In ground No. 2 of the appeal the assessee has assailed levy of penalty on the gr…

Magnaflux Systems Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 42/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna L. Joshi
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 43B

….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 3 A.Y.2008-09 565(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…

M/S. Babubhai Cloth Store, Nashik vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on technicalities

ITA 1727/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 115WSection 271(1)(d)

…t is a settled legal proposition that the AO is under obligation to specify the correct limb at the time of initiation as well as at the time of levy of penalty. This view of ours is fortified by the judgment 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. In view of the above deliberation on this issue, without going into the merits of the 5 M/s. Babubhai Cloth Stores penalty, we are of the opinion that the penalty order is liable to be quashed on this legal is…

Yashwant Raman Choudhary, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2859/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Shingte
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…y has to be levied on the assessee. 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 AO is unsustainable in law. Therefore, the Ld. AR prayed that penalty should be quashed. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has placed reliance on the orde…

Messung Systems Private Limited, Pune vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 333/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 143(3)(ii)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

…penalty proceedings were initiated. 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. In this regard, he brought our attention to the assessment order as well as the penalty order highlighting the…

Shaila Pralhad Choudhary, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result, the impugned order for A

ITA 2858/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2857 & 2858/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Meshram
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)

…tent of Rs.2,03,110/- which includes both the additions. The manner in which satisfaction has been recorded for initiating penalty and thereafter the manner in which penalty is levied is contrary to the law laid down in the case of CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) and CIT & Another Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Karn.). 3. The ld. AR submitted that, similarly for the A.Y. 2010-11, the AO in assessment order dated 08-01-2014 u/s.143(3) r.w.s 153A has initiated penalty proceedings in respect of addition of undisclosed interest receipts Rs.64,983/- and undisclosed investment…

Shaila Pralhad Choudhary, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result, the impugned order for A

ITA 2857/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2857 & 2858/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Meshram
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)

…tent of Rs.2,03,110/- which includes both the additions. The manner in which satisfaction has been recorded for initiating penalty and thereafter the manner in which penalty is levied is contrary to the law laid down in the case of CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) and CIT & Another Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Karn.). 3. The ld. AR submitted that, similarly for the A.Y. 2010-11, the AO in assessment order dated 08-01-2014 u/s.143(3) r.w.s 153A has initiated penalty proceedings in respect of addition of undisclosed interest receipts Rs.64,983/- and undisclosed investment…

M/S. Namrata Promoters & Builders, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are allowed and the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 2673/PUN/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2670 To 2673/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2013-14 M/S. Namrata Promoters & Builders, At Sr.No.27, Gaira – Warale Gaon Road, Near Talegaon Midc, Talegaon, Pune. Pan : Aabfn1737A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri V. L. Jain Revenue By : Ms. Sheweta Mishra सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 आदेश / Order Per Bench : There Are Four Appeals Under Consideration & It Relates To The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) & Section 271Aab Of The Act Involves The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri V. L. JainFor Respondent: Ms. Sheweta Mishra
Section 139Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…sideration. Considering the same, we are of the opinion such recording of satisfaction does not make the penalty order sustainable. Therefore, considering the binding judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court 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 are of the opinion that such penalty order is unsustainable in law legally. It is a settled legal proposition from the said judgements, the Assessing Officer is under obligation to specify the appropriate limb…

M/S. Namrata Promoters & Builders, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are allowed and the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 2672/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2670 To 2673/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2013-14 M/S. Namrata Promoters & Builders, At Sr.No.27, Gaira – Warale Gaon Road, Near Talegaon Midc, Talegaon, Pune. Pan : Aabfn1737A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri V. L. Jain Revenue By : Ms. Sheweta Mishra सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 आदेश / Order Per Bench : There Are Four Appeals Under Consideration & It Relates To The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) & Section 271Aab Of The Act Involves The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri V. L. JainFor Respondent: Ms. Sheweta Mishra
Section 139Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…sideration. Considering the same, we are of the opinion such recording of satisfaction does not make the penalty order sustainable. Therefore, considering the binding judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court 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 are of the opinion that such penalty order is unsustainable in law legally. It is a settled legal proposition from the said judgements, the Assessing Officer is under obligation to specify the appropriate limb…

M/S. Namrata Promoters & Builders, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are allowed and the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 2671/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2670 To 2673/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2013-14 M/S. Namrata Promoters & Builders, At Sr.No.27, Gaira – Warale Gaon Road, Near Talegaon Midc, Talegaon, Pune. Pan : Aabfn1737A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri V. L. Jain Revenue By : Ms. Sheweta Mishra सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 आदेश / Order Per Bench : There Are Four Appeals Under Consideration & It Relates To The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) & Section 271Aab Of The Act Involves The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri V. L. JainFor Respondent: Ms. Sheweta Mishra
Section 139Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…sideration. Considering the same, we are of the opinion such recording of satisfaction does not make the penalty order sustainable. Therefore, considering the binding judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court 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 are of the opinion that such penalty order is unsustainable in law legally. It is a settled legal proposition from the said judgements, the Assessing Officer is under obligation to specify the appropriate limb…

M/S. Namrata Promoters & Builders, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are allowed and the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 2670/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2670 To 2673/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2013-14 M/S. Namrata Promoters & Builders, At Sr.No.27, Gaira – Warale Gaon Road, Near Talegaon Midc, Talegaon, Pune. Pan : Aabfn1737A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri V. L. Jain Revenue By : Ms. Sheweta Mishra सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 आदेश / Order Per Bench : There Are Four Appeals Under Consideration & It Relates To The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) & Section 271Aab Of The Act Involves The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri V. L. JainFor Respondent: Ms. Sheweta Mishra
Section 139Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…sideration. Considering the same, we are of the opinion such recording of satisfaction does not make the penalty order sustainable. Therefore, considering the binding judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court 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 are of the opinion that such penalty order is unsustainable in law legally. It is a settled legal proposition from the said judgements, the Assessing Officer is under obligation to specify the appropriate limb…

Devashri Nirman LLP, Panaji vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Panaji

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 272/PAN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Y. V. Raviraj
Section 271(1)(c)

…rly demonstrate that authorities below are not sure as to what is the charge against the assessee. In such situation, penalty cannot be sustained under section 271(1)(c) as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samson Perinchery [2017] 392 ITR 4 (Bom). 7 ITA No. 272/Pan./2017 15. In the background of the aforesaid discussion and precedent, in our considered opinion, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) in this case is not sustainable. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the levy of penalty. 16. In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed. Order pr…

Komal Santram Murjani vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1713/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Pune17 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sahbana Parveen
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ed the above facts of the case and submitted that this is the case where the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is not giving in accordance with settled legal proposition of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court 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. 6. On hearing the ld. DR for the Revenue, we perused the order of the Assessing Officer. It is noticed from the contents of para 7.3 of the order of 3 Assessing Officer that the satisfaction for initiating the pe…