CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery

ITO, Ward-3(3), Thane vs. Shri Shaitesh Dattatray Thakare, Thane

Appeal is partly allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Shailesh D. Thakare Income Tax Officer, (Prop. Of Shivam Trading Ward 3(3), 6Th Floor, B – Wing, Company), K-14, New Vaity Wadi, R.No.8, Ashar It Park, Vs. Vishnu Nagar, Road No.16Z, Naupada, Wagle Estate Midc, Thane (West), Thane (W) - 400604 Mumbai – 400 602 Pan: Abzpt 0626P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shri Shailesh D. Thakare Ward 3(3), (Prop. Of Shivam Trading Room No.8, Company), 6Th Floor, B – Wing, K-14, New Vaity Wadi, Vs. Wagle Industrial Estate, Vishnu Nagar, Thane (W) - 400604 Naupada, Thane (West), Mumbai – 400 602 Pan: Abzpt 0626P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Shailesh D. Thakare Present For:

…g off the inapplicable charge in the said notice and giving vague directions in the Assessment Order dated 26.03.2014, thereby violating the principle of natural justice as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri Samson Perinchery [2017] 392 ITR 4 (Bombay) and PCIT vs. Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation Pvt. Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. : 24 of 2019; order dated 11.11.2019 (Bombay High Court)]. 2. In the facts and Circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of learned Assessing Officer in leving penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) of Rs.2,58,886/- by passing a draft or…

Shailesh D. Thakre (Prop of Shivam Trading, Mumbai vs. ITO WD3(3), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Shailesh D. Thakare Income Tax Officer, (Prop. Of Shivam Trading Ward 3(3), 6Th Floor, B – Wing, Company), K-14, New Vaity Wadi, R.No.8, Ashar It Park, Vs. Vishnu Nagar, Road No.16Z, Naupada, Wagle Estate Midc, Thane (West), Thane (W) - 400604 Mumbai – 400 602 Pan: Abzpt 0626P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shri Shailesh D. Thakare Ward 3(3), (Prop. Of Shivam Trading Room No.8, Company), 6Th Floor, B – Wing, K-14, New Vaity Wadi, Vs. Wagle Industrial Estate, Vishnu Nagar, Thane (W) - 400604 Naupada, Thane (West), Mumbai – 400 602 Pan: Abzpt 0626P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Shailesh D. Thakare Present For:

…g off the inapplicable charge in the said notice and giving vague directions in the Assessment Order dated 26.03.2014, thereby violating the principle of natural justice as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri Samson Perinchery [2017] 392 ITR 4 (Bombay) and PCIT vs. Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation Pvt. Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. : 24 of 2019; order dated 11.11.2019 (Bombay High Court)]. 2. In the facts and Circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of learned Assessing Officer in leving penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) of Rs.2,58,886/- by passing a draft or…

Shailesh D. Thakare, Thane vs. ITO WD 3(3), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Shailesh D. Thakare Income Tax Officer, (Prop. Of Shivam Trading Ward 3(3), 6Th Floor, B – Wing, Company), K-14, New Vaity Wadi, R.No.8, Ashar It Park, Vs. Vishnu Nagar, Road No.16Z, Naupada, Wagle Estate Midc, Thane (West), Thane (W) - 400604 Mumbai – 400 602 Pan: Abzpt 0626P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shri Shailesh D. Thakare Ward 3(3), (Prop. Of Shivam Trading Room No.8, Company), 6Th Floor, B – Wing, K-14, New Vaity Wadi, Vs. Wagle Industrial Estate, Vishnu Nagar, Thane (W) - 400604 Naupada, Thane (West), Mumbai – 400 602 Pan: Abzpt 0626P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Shailesh D. Thakare Present For:

…g off the inapplicable charge in the said notice and giving vague directions in the Assessment Order dated 26.03.2014, thereby violating the principle of natural justice as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri Samson Perinchery [2017] 392 ITR 4 (Bombay) and PCIT vs. Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation Pvt. Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. : 24 of 2019; order dated 11.11.2019 (Bombay High Court)]. 2. In the facts and Circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of learned Assessing Officer in leving penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) of Rs.2,58,886/- by passing a draft or…

Ramjilal G Johar, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ramjilal G. Johar Ito 19(3)(1) C/O M/S Arvind G. Shah Vs. Matru Mandir, 407 Lotus House, 33A Aayakar Karyalaya, New Marine Lines Nana Chowk, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 007

…enalty proceedings and/or show-caused the assessee as regards one default, and thereafter imposed penalty for another default. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Samson Perincherry (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom). In its said order the Hon’ble High Court had while upholding the view taken by the Tribunal, had held, that the A.O cannot be permitted to initiate penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for one default and thereafter impose the penalty for another default. The observations of the Hon’ble High Court are culled out as under: “We, thus, in terms of our afores…

Mr. Amrish Manoj Dhupelia, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(1), Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 4636/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 4637/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 4638/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) Mr. Ambrish Manoj Dhupelia The Dy. Commissioner Of 12-13, Esplanade, 3 R D Floor, 3, Income Tax, Central Circle- A.K. Nayak Marg, Fort, 1(1), Old Cgo Building, फनाभ/ 9Th Mumbai-400 001 Annexe, Floor, Room No.903, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacw1258P अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri K. Shvram, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Brajendra Kumar, Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 14.09.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 14.09.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Appeals Of The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-47, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal Nos. Cit(A)-47/10023/18-19, Cit(A)- 47/10015/18-19, Cit(A)-47/10042/18-19, Cit(A)-47/10026/18-19 Vide Dated 30.05.2019. The Assessments Were Framed By The Dy.

…ed form without deleting or striking off the inapplicable parts of that generic notice.” 5. We noted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has taken cognizance of the decision of CIT v. Smt. Kaushalya [1994] 216 ITR 660 (Bom) and CIT v. Samson Perinchery [2017] 392 ITR 4 (Bom.). ITA Nos.4636 to 4638/Mum/2019 Mr. Ambrish Manoj Dhupelia; AY 10-11 to 12-13 6. Hence, in this case also admittedly, there is no striking off of the irrelevant portion of the notice, the penalty proceedings is vitiated. Hence, we quash the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and reverse the order of Com…

Ashiana Family Trust, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 27(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri M. Balaganesh, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 5459/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2012-13) Ashiana Family Trust The Asst. Commissioner Of 13 Vasant Vihar Dr. Cg Road, Income Tax, Circle 27(1) 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi Chembur, Mumbai फनाभ/ Railway Station Complex Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा सिं./Pan No. Aabta6326J अऩीराथी की ओय से/ Appellant By : Dr. P Daniel, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Brajendra Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 24.06.2021 घोषणा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 31.08.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय ससिंह, उऩाध्मऺ के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-24, Mumbai, [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-24/Acit-27(1)/It-588/45/2018-19 Dated 14.06.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ward 17(2), Mumbai (In Short Dcit/ Ao) For The A.Y. 2012-13 Vide Order Dated 13.11.2014 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). The Penalty Was Levied By Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), Mumbai Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 28.05.2015. Ashiana Family Trust; Ay 12-13 The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Order Of 2. Cit(A) Confirming The Levy Of Penalty By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act, Even Though There Is Defect In The Notice Issued Under Section 274 Read With Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. For This, Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground No.1: -

…ted form without deleting or striking off the inapplicable parts of that generic notice.” 5. We noted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has taken cognizance of the decision of CIT v. Smt. Kaushalya [1994] 216 ITR 660 (Bom) and CIT v. Samson Perinchery [2017] 392 ITR 4 (Bom.). 6. Hence, in this case also admittedly, there is no striking off of the irrelevant portion of the notice, the penalty proceedings is vitiated. Hence, we quash the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and reverse the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). As the issue is covered by the decision B…

Mrs. Nalini Jayantilal Sayia Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

…wherein penalty has been initiated under one limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and ultimately levied for another limb of Section 271(1) (c) of the Act. We find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samson Perinchery reported in 392 ITR 4 (Bom) had held that concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act carry different meanings / connotations and therefore, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer with regard to only one of the two breaches mentioned u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, for initiation of penalty proceedings will not…

Lubrizol India Pvt Ltd., Thane vs. Dy CIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 6284/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2011-12) Lubrizol India Private Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of 9/3, Thane Belapur Road, Income Tax, (Ltu)-2 फनाभ/ 29Th Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400 705 Florr, Centre No.1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Vs. Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा सिं./Pan No. Aaaml0126H अऩीराथी की ओय से/ Appellant By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Brajendra Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2021 घोषणा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 12.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय ससिंह, उऩाध्मऺ के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-1, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], Dated 06.08.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Ltu)-2, Mumbai (In Short Acit/ Ito/ Lubrizol India Private Limited; Ay: 11-12 Ao) For The A.Y. 2011-12 Vide Order Dated 23.02.2015 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’).

…ted form without deleting or striking off the inapplicable parts of that generic notice.” 5. We noted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has taken cognizance of the decision of CIT v. Smt. Kaushalya [1994] 216 ITR 660 (Bom) and CIT v. Samson Perinchery [2017] 392 ITR 4 (Bom.). 6. The DR relied on the Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Ventura Textiles Ltd. Vs. CIT in Income Tax Appeal No.958 OF 2017 vide order dated 12.06.2020. 7. Hence, in this case also admittedly, there is no striking off of the irrelevant portion of the notice, the penalty proceedings is vitiated. Hence, we quash the penalty le…

Netel (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Thane

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manoj Kr. Aggarwal

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANOJ KR. AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7320/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2010-11) Netel (India) Limited, The DCIT, Circle-(3), 3rd Floor, Liberty Building, 6th, Floor, B Wing, Room Sir Vithaldas Thackersey Marg, No.2, Ashar IT Park, Mumbai-400020 Road No.16Z, Wagle Vs. PAN: AABCN8692H Estate, MIDC, Thane-(W). Appellant Respondent : Ms. Dinkle Haria (AR) Appellant by Revenue by : Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 22.01.2021 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP; 1.…