CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery

Sheetal Wireless Technologies P Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Cir- 06, Pune

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.591/Pun/2021 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sheetal Wireless Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Flat No.17, 2Nd Floor, Sheshadri Society, Rambaug Colony, Paud Road, Pune – 411 038 . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aahcs4069D बनधम / V/S. . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent Dcit, Circle-6, Pune द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 01/12/2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G.D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2015-16 Is Assailed Against The First Appellate Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short “Cit(A) /Nfac”] Dt. 08/09/2021 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Emanated Out Of Penalty Order [For Short “Po”] Of Dy. Commissioner Of Income, Circle-6, Pune U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dt.28/06/2018 [For Short “Ao”] U/S.143(3) Of The Act Dt. 08.12.2017. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 4

…either parties. 5. In the light of judgement rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Dilip N Shroff Vs JCIT” reported at 291 ITR 519 (SC), and of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay, in plethora of cases inter-alia “CIT Vs Samson Pericherry” reportedin 392 ITR 4, and recently in “Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs DCIT” reported at 434 ITR 1, we are on the considered view that, since the provision of section 271(1)(c) is calamitous, albeit commercial, consequences, and mandatory, hence brooks no trifling or dilution therewith, as a result in the instant case the SCN dt. 08/12/2017 was issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c…

Pandit Gangadgar Kawale, Nanded vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Nanded

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1409/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Pandit Gangadhar Kawale A/P Shelgaon, Umari, Nanded – 431807 Maharashtra . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan:Avlpk1461F बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, . . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Ward 3, Nanded द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Pratikh Sandhbhor Revenue By : Shri M.G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing: 30/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Aurangabad [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 27/03/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Emanated Out Of Order Of Penalty [For Short “Po”] Dt. 24/03/2017 Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Nanded [For Short “Ao”] U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

…ither parties. 4. In the light of judgement rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Dilip N Shroff Vs JCIT” reported at 291 ITR 519 (SC), and of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay, in plethora of cases inter-alia “CIT Vs Samson Pericherry” reported in 392 ITR 4, and recently in “Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs DCIT” reported at 434 ITR 1, we are ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 4 Pandit Gangadhar Kawale ITA No.1409/PUN/2019 AY: 2009-10 on the considered view that, since the provision of section 271(1)(c) is calamitous, albeit commercial, consequences, and mandatory, hence brooks no trifling or dilution therewith, as a resu…

Shinde Somanath Appasaheb, Ahmednagar vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Ahmednagar

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.08/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shinde Somnath Appasaheb Shinde Vasti, Shirdi, Tal Rahata, Dist Ahmednagar – 423109 Pan : Emeps4342M . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनधम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Ahmednagar . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 27/09/2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27/09/2022 आदेश / Order Per G.D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2013-14 Is Assailed Against The First Appellate Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 25/09/2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Emanated Out Of Penalty Order [For Short “Po”] Of Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ahmednagar [For Short “Ao”] U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dt.16/06/2017. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 5

…2019 AY: 2013-14 6. In the light of judgement rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Dilip N Shroff Vs JCIT” reported at 291 ITR 519 (SC), and of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay, in plethora of cases inter-alia “CIT Vs Samson Pericherry” reportedin 392 ITR 4, and recently in “Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs DCIT” reported at 434 ITR 1, we are on the considered view that, since the provision of section 271(1)(c) is calamitous, albeit commercial, consequences, and mandatory, hence brooks no trifling or dilution therewith, as a result in the instant case the SCN dt. 13/12/2016 issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune vs. M/S. Finolex Cables Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.86 & 87/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Vs. M/S. Finolex Cables Ltd., 26/27, Mumbai – Pune Road, Pimpri, Pune- 411018. Pan : Aaacf2637D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By : Shri J. G. Pendse Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 12.10.2020 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.86/Pun/2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Are Stated Herein.

…he specific limb in the show cause notice, become fatal to the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ventura Textiles Ltd. vs. CIT, 117 taxmann.com 182 and CIT vs. Samson Perinchery, 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) had quashed the penalty proceedings. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 8. It is contended that the ld. CIT(A) ought not to have placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Samson Perinchery (supra), inasmuch as, the respondent- asse…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune vs. M/S. Finolex Cables Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.86 & 87/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Vs. M/S. Finolex Cables Ltd., 26/27, Mumbai – Pune Road, Pimpri, Pune- 411018. Pan : Aaacf2637D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By : Shri J. G. Pendse Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 12.10.2020 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.86/Pun/2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Are Stated Herein.

…he specific limb in the show cause notice, become fatal to the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ventura Textiles Ltd. vs. CIT, 117 taxmann.com 182 and CIT vs. Samson Perinchery, 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) had quashed the penalty proceedings. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 8. It is contended that the ld. CIT(A) ought not to have placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Samson Perinchery (supra), inasmuch as, the respondent- asse…