CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery

Ajinkya Dilip Kotepatil, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(3), Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1877/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ajinkya Dilip Kotepatil, C/O. S.B. Boob & Associates, F-1, Sumangal Plaza, Hdfc Cross Road, Canada Corner, Nashik-422005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Cqxpk0159D बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward-1(3), ……""यथ" / Respondent Nashik. Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Alok Malviya सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2020 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Nashik Dated 13.06.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. The Assessee Had Voluntarily Surrendered The Income During The Course Of Assessment Proceeding & Paid Almost Taxes Accordingly. However, The Ao & Appellate Commissioner Erred & Levied & Confirmed The Penalty. 2. This Was The First Time When The Assessee Was Scrutinized & He Is A Student After All. However, He Had Declared Additional Income & Paid The Taxes & Showed His Bonafide Intention.

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1877/PUN/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ajinkya Dilip Kotepatil, C/o. S.B. Boob & Associates, F-1, Sumangal Plaza, HDFC Cross Road, Canada Corner, Nashik-422005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant PAN : CQXPK0159D बनाम / V/s. ITO, Ward-1(3), ……""यथ" / Respondent Nashik. Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Alok Malviya सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date of Hearing : 11.02.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 12.02.2020 आदेश / ORDER PE…

Fire Solution India Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…th the initiation and levy of penalty. 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). 8. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue heavily relied on the or…

Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1 (4), Nashik vs. Jitendra Ravindra Malpure, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

…pleting the assessment, the Assessing Officer has to come to a finding as to whether the assessee has concealed his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery reported in (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom) held that where initiation of penalty is one limb and the levy of penalty is on other limb, then in the absence of proper show cause notice to the assessee, there is no merit in levy of penalty. 6. Considering the facts of the present case in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Samson 5 Jitendra Rav…

Ramesh Haribhau Gawali, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…th the initiation and levy of penalty. 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). 8. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue heavily relied on the or…

Pramod Koti, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 3, Pune

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

…rding satisfaction was not clear about precise charge to be invoked for initiating penalty proceedings. The ld. AR submitted that in the light of decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Samson Perinchery reported as 392 ITR 4 and the decision of Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory reported as 359 ITR 565, penalty proceedings are liable to be quashed. 3. Shri Pankaj Garg, the ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer while passing order u/s. 271(1)(c) has mentioned specific charge i.e. conceale…

Vijay Shivajirao Kokate, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1008/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10

…pleting the assessment, the Assessing Officer has to come to a finding as to whether the assessee has concealed his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery reported in (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom) held that where initiation of penalty is one limb and the levy of penalty is on other limb, then in the absence of proper show cause notice to the assessee, there is no merit in levy of penalty. 6. Considering the facts of the present case in the light of the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery (sup…