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 366,470 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

ACIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. Chirag Construction, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4321/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Shri Virender Singh, DRFor Respondent: Miss Pritama Pokhrana, AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…lars of income as well as for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Samson Perinchery (2013) 392 ITR 4 (Bom), wherein it is held as under:- “3 The impugned order of the Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed upon the Respondent Assessee. This by holding that the initiation of penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act by Assessing Officer 5 was for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income while the order imposing penalty is for concealment of in…

ACIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1593/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Krupa R. Gandhi &For Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru
Section 271(1)(c)

…n the case of Orbit Enterprises v. Income Tax Officer [60 ITR (Trib.) 252] the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal considered identical situation. The Tribunal considering the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Samson Perinchery [392 ITR 4] held that, if the Assessing Officer failed to specify the charge for which the penalty proceedings are initiated the proceedings are bad in law. Respectfully following the said decision, we hold that the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act suffers from infirmity as it was issued on non- application of mind by the Assessing Officer a…

ACIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1592/MUM/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Krupa R. Gandhi &For Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru
Section 271(1)(c)

…n the case of Orbit Enterprises v. Income Tax Officer [60 ITR (Trib.) 252] the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal considered identical situation. The Tribunal considering the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Samson Perinchery [392 ITR 4] held that, if the Assessing Officer failed to specify the charge for which the penalty proceedings are initiated the proceedings are bad in law. Respectfully following the said decision, we hold that the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act suffers from infirmity as it was issued on non- application of mind by the Assessing Officer a…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Ghodawat Foods International Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1169/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R.G. NaharFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…on another would make the penalty proceedings unsustainable in the eye of law and hence, under such circumstances penalty is liable to be set aside. 9. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Samson Perinchery reported as 392 ITR 4 under circumstances where both the limbs were mentioned by Assessing Officer for levy of penalty has held the penalty order bad in law. The relevant extract of the order of Hon‟ble High Court reads as under : “6. The above submission on the part of the Revenue is in the face of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Pai v/s. CIT 292 ITR 11 [rel…

Mulay Brothers Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 78/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…for levying penalty, the order levying penalty is not sustainable in the eye of law. To support his contentions the ld. AR placed 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. 2.1 On merits, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee had claimed interest paid to the Department on delayed payment of TDS. The assessee was not aware as to whether payment of interest on delayed deposit of TDS is allowable or not. The assessee was under bonafide belief that the 3 ITA No. 78/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2011-12 payment of interest is compensa…

DCIT Cir 3, Thane vs. Sai Anand Constrction, Thane

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1835/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Sai Anand Construction Tax Shop No. 22-27, Saitirth Circle-3, Room No. 02, 6 Th Siddarth Nagar, Kopri Vs. Floor, Ashar It Park, B-Wing, Colony Thane(E)-400 603 Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane(W)- 400 604 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aakfm2891B

For Appellant: Shashi Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Saurabhkumar Rai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In view of the above facts, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that assessee’s case 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.) 7. On the other hand, the learned Dr. heavily relied on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Maharaj Garage & Company vs. CIT Income Tax Reference No. 21 of 2008 order dated 22.08.2017 dated 28- 08-2017. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative heavily relied on Para 16 of the order which reads as under: - “16. It is not in…

Saidutta Transport & Developers P. Ltd, Thane vs. ACIT Cir 4, Thane

Appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 4483/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4483/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Saidutta Transport & Developers Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax Circle-4 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Near Hanuman Mandir बनाम/ Chatrapati Shivaji Marg Vs. Road No.16Z Virar(W),Tal.Vasai Wagle Industrial Estate Thane-400 601 Thane-400 604 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aadcs-8773-N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Saurabh Kumar Rai, Ld.Dr Assessee By : Subodh Ratnaparkhi,Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / : 03/04/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 06 /04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Subodh Ratnaparkhi,Ld.ARFor Respondent: Saurabh Kumar Rai, Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ITA No.4483/Mum/2016 Saidutta Transport & Developers Pvt.Ltd Assessment Year 2010-11 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “आई” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी श""जीत दे, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम" । BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4483/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Saidutta Transport & Developers Assistant Commissioner of Private Limited Income Tax Circle-4 6th Floor, Ashar IT Park Near Hanuman Mandir बनाम/ Chatrapati Shivaji Marg Vs. Road No.16Z Virar(W),Tal.Vasai Wagle Industrial Estate T…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Smt. Madhuri Sunil Kotecha

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1243/PUN/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 10Section 10(32)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…ts subsequent to the imposition of penalty cannot validate the order of penalty which, when passed, was not sustainable.” Similar view has been taken by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Samson Perinchery reported as 392 ITR 4. 11. The Pune Bench of the Tribunal have been consistently deleting levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) where there has been ambiguity in recording of satisfaction and levy of penalty. The charge for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) has to be specifically conveyed to the assessee at the time of recording satisfaction otherwise, the principles of natural j…

Bipin Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1143/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण “बी” न्यायऩीठ ऩुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य, एवं श्री ववकास अवस्थी, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.1142 & 1143/PUN/2016 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Bipin Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Gat No. 136, Varve Budruk, Pune Satara Road, Tal.-Bhor, Pune – 412205 PAN : AAACB7051R .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sharad Shah Revenue by : Dr…

Bipin Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1142/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण “बी” न्यायऩीठ ऩुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य, एवं श्री ववकास अवस्थी, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.1142 & 1143/PUN/2016 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Bipin Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Gat No. 136, Varve Budruk, Pune Satara Road, Tal.-Bhor, Pune – 412205 PAN : AAACB7051R .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sharad Shah Revenue by : Dr…

Eleganza Furnishing P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2158/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri D.V. LakhaniFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
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…

Sumer Corporation, Mumbai vs. Asst Citcen Cir 36, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 494/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy
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…

Makcon, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2 Panvel, Thane

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1940/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Makcon The Income Tax Officer C/O Malleshi Arakeri Ward 2, Panvel (Partner), Vs. Flat No, 4038 Phalke Niketan, Tilak Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai-400 089 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaofm9275B

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…see is in default, which is clear from above reproduced order of the AO regarding levy of penalty. In view of these facts, we are of the view that the issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Samson Perinchery (2013) 392 ITR 4 (Bom). Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, we allow this appeal of the assessee. 6. In the Result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28-02-2018. (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 28-02-2018 Sudip Sarkar /Sr.PS 6 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The App…

The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3673/MUM/2016[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीऱसं./Ita No.3673/Mumbai/2016 (निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year: 1994-95) M/S. The Bombay Dyeing Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Mumbai & Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Mumbai Neville House, J.N. Heredia Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001. स्थायीऱेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaact 2328 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shriyogesh A. Thar & Shri Chaitanya Joshi Respondent By :Shri Abhijeet Patankar, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19/02/2018 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am:

For Appellant: ShriYogesh A. Thar &For Respondent: Shri Abhijeet Patankar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 37Section 80H

…‟s Emerald Meadows (supra), penalty should not be imposed. Similar view has been M/s. The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Mumbai Assessment Year: 1994-95 upheld by the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court, Mumbai in the case of Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom). Considering all these decisions, the Co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Orbit Enterprises vs. ITO [60 ITR(Trib.) 251] held that AO to make assessee aware in notice as to which of two limbs invoked against him for purposes of levy of penalty and striking off of irrelevant clause in notice is material. Therefore, following the…

Tata Communication Transformation Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissoner of Income Tax, Range 14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3108/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.R. & Ms. Urvi Hemta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.C Omi Ningshen, D.R
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Tata Communications Deputy Commissioner of Transformation Services Income Tax, Range-14(3)(1), Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower B, Sixth Floor, Plot C21 M.K. Road, Vs. & C-36, Mumbai - 400020 G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai- 400098 PAN: AACCV3189Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Ketan Ved, A.R. & Ms. Urvi Hemta, A.R. Revenue by : Shri M.C Omi Ningshen, D.R. Date of Hearing : 11.01.2018 Date of Pronouncement…

ITO 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Alia Creative Consultants P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4857/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4857/Mum/2016 & Cross Objection No.304/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Sanjiv M. Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Rajat Mittal, Ld. DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…specify the exact charge / limb for which the penalty was being initiated and therefore, the penalty proceedings stood vitiated on legal grounds. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery [392 ITR 4]. The Ld. AR further contended that even otherwise there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) since full particulars of income were furnished by the assessee in the return of income and error in ITA.No.4857/Mum/2016 & CO.No.304/Mum/2017 Alia Creative Consultants Priva…

Ajanta Pharma Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6882/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri &For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena
Section 115JSection 132(4)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 292B

…ers, ITA No. 4168/Mum/2013 dated 28.04.2017; iv) PCIT vs. Smt. Baisetty Revathi, I.T.T.A No. 684 of 2016 dated 13.07.2017 (Andhra Pradesh High Court); v) CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Karnataka); and, vi) CIT vs. Samson Perinchery, 392 ITR 4 (Bom) 8. On this aspect, the ld. CIT-DR vehemently pointed out that a perusal of the penalty order clearly establishes that the penalty has been imposed for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in the background of the default falling in the scope of Explanation 5A to Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act, and that the Assessing Officer had duly app…

Pennozil Quaker State India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as indicated above and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 7503/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri F. V. IraniFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
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…

DCIT 1(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Pennzoil Quaker State India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as indicated above and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 7386/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri F. V. IraniFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
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…

Deutsche Bank Ag, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 4724/MUM/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse
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 4 ITA.No.4723 & 4724 /MUM/2015 Deutsche Bank AG not firm therefore proceedings suffer from non-compliance with principles of natural justice in as much as the Assessing Offi…