Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT

291 ITR 519Supreme Court of India2007#113 most cited

What is Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT authority for?

A penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to strike out the inapplicable limb (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) from the standard proforma, indicating non-application of mind. The initial burden of proving concealment or inaccurate particulars rests on the Revenue.

565

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT · Section 271(1)(c) · Section 274 · penalty notice invalidity · non-application of mind · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · burden of proof Revenue · striking off irrelevant clauses · standard proforma notice · levy of penalty

Also reported as

210 CTR 228

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 143(3)Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 153ASection 270A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomefurnishing inaccurate particularspenalty u/s 271(1)(c)concealment of incomesection 274levy of penaltysection 271(1)section 271section 271(1)(c)section 27section 139(1)

Judgments citing Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT

ITO Ward-2(4), Thane vs. Yogesh A. Doshi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 377/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharmai.T.O. Vs. Yogesh A. Doshi, Ward 2(4), Thane, 204, A/43, Sector No. 3, R.No. 12, B-Wing, 6Th Shanti Nagar, Mira Road Floor, Ashar It Park, (E), Thane-401104. Wagle Industrial Estate, Road No. 16Z, Thane- 400604. Pan/Gir No. Agspd 2681 C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Akhtar H Ansari (Dr) Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 23/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2020

Section 271(1)(c)

…Surajbhan (2007) 294 ITR 481 (P&H HC):- Penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of higher income having been subsequently declared. 3 ITO Vs Yogesh A Doshi 7. The Supreme Court has recently reiterated the law in case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 by holding in para 62 that finding in assessment proceedings cannot automatically adopted in penalty proceedings and the authorities have to consider the matter afresh from different angle. 8. In the case of CIT v. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) it was held as under: "We do not agree, as the assessee had furnished all…

ITO, W-1(5), Thane vs. Hemant Manohar Takle, Thane

In the result, all these three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 358/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma

Section 271(1)(c)

…peal, the then CIT(A) had restricted the addition to the extent of 25% of bogus purchases. Hence the addition to income has been sustained on estimation basis. 6. The Supreme Court has recently reiterated the law in case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 by holding in para 62 that finding in assessment proceedings cannot automatically adopted in penalty proceedings and the authorities have to consider the matter afresh from different angle. Moreover, in the case of Ajay Loknath Lohia, order dated 5.10.2018, Mumbai ITAT has addressed that when AO had estimated cost GP on alleged purchases, such di…

ITO, W-1(5), Thane vs. Hemant Manohar Takle, Thane

In the result, all these three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 357/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma

Section 271(1)(c)

…peal, the then CIT(A) had restricted the addition to the extent of 25% of bogus purchases. Hence the addition to income has been sustained on estimation basis. 6. The Supreme Court has recently reiterated the law in case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 by holding in para 62 that finding in assessment proceedings cannot automatically adopted in penalty proceedings and the authorities have to consider the matter afresh from different angle. Moreover, in the case of Ajay Loknath Lohia, order dated 5.10.2018, Mumbai ITAT has addressed that when AO had estimated cost GP on alleged purchases, such di…

ITO, W-1(5), Thane vs. Hemant Manohar Takle, Thane

In the result, all these three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 356/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma

Section 271(1)(c)

…peal, the then CIT(A) had restricted the addition to the extent of 25% of bogus purchases. Hence the addition to income has been sustained on estimation basis. 6. The Supreme Court has recently reiterated the law in case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 by holding in para 62 that finding in assessment proceedings cannot automatically adopted in penalty proceedings and the authorities have to consider the matter afresh from different angle. Moreover, in the case of Ajay Loknath Lohia, order dated 5.10.2018, Mumbai ITAT has addressed that when AO had estimated cost GP on alleged purchases, such di…

ITO Ward 1(5), Thane vs. M/S Durga Industries, Thane

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 353/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharmai.T.O., Vs. M/S Durga Industries, Ward 1(5), Thane, C-2/202, Vedant Complex, Vartak 6Th Room No. 14, Nagar, Thane (West)-400606. Floor, B-Wing, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W), 400604. Pan/Gir No.Aaefd 6248 F (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 271(1)(c)

…250) categorically held that:- The very fact that the assessee agreed to pay tax and did not challenge the assessment order, cannot be construed as mala fide." 6. The Supreme Court has recently reiterated the law in case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 by holding in para 62 that finding in assessment proceedings cannot automatically adopted in penalty proceedings and the authorities have to consider the matter afresh from different angle. Moreover, in the case of Ajay Loknath Lohia, order dated 5.10.2018, Mumbai ITAT has addressed that when AO had estimated cost GP on alleged purchases, such di…

ITO, W-3(2), Thane vs. Prayosha Buildmat Pvt Ltd, Thane

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 345/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharmai.T.O., Vs. M/S Prayosha Buildmat Pvt. Ltd., Ward 3(2), Thane, 8, Vivek Co-Operative Housing 6Th Room No. 14, Society, Ravi Compound, Madan Floor, B-Wing, Wagle Lal Dhingra Road, Mr. Talwalkar Industrial Estate, Gym Panchpakadi, Thane (W)- Thane (W), 400604. 400602. Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 0114 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 271(1)(c)

…well founded. * CIT V/S Surajbhan (2007) 294 ITR 481 (P&H HC):- Penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of higher income having been subsequently declared. 7. The Supreme Court has recently reiterated the law in case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 by holding in para 62 that finding in assessment proceedings cannot automatically adopted in penalty proceedings and the authorities have to consider the matter afresh from different angle. 8. In the case of CIT v. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) it was held as under: "We do not agree, as the assessee had furnished all…

Sampa Anupurba, Angul vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 62/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.58 To 62/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2011-2012 To 2015-2016) Sampa Anupurba, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, Cuttack At: Amalapada, Talcher, Dist: Anugul, Odisha स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Ainpa 3951 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Consolidated Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 03.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2011-2012 To 2015-2016. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical To Each Other, Except Different In Figure, Therefore, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, All The Appeals Are Heard Analogously & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take Into Consideration The Facts & Grounds Mentioned In Ita No.58/Ctk/2019 For The Assessment Year 2011-2012 For Deciding All 2

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…d that the standard proforma of notice under section 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant clauses would lead to an inference of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT, 291 ITR 519(SC) has also noticed that where the Assessing Officer issues notice under section 274 of the Act in the standard proforma and the inappropriate words are not deleted, the same would postulate that the Assessing Officer was not sure as to whether he was to proceed on the basis that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furni…

Sampa Anupurba, Angul vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 61/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.58 To 62/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2011-2012 To 2015-2016) Sampa Anupurba, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, Cuttack At: Amalapada, Talcher, Dist: Anugul, Odisha स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Ainpa 3951 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Consolidated Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 03.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2011-2012 To 2015-2016. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical To Each Other, Except Different In Figure, Therefore, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, All The Appeals Are Heard Analogously & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take Into Consideration The Facts & Grounds Mentioned In Ita No.58/Ctk/2019 For The Assessment Year 2011-2012 For Deciding All 2

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…d that the standard proforma of notice under section 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant clauses would lead to an inference of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT, 291 ITR 519(SC) has also noticed that where the Assessing Officer issues notice under section 274 of the Act in the standard proforma and the inappropriate words are not deleted, the same would postulate that the Assessing Officer was not sure as to whether he was to proceed on the basis that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furni…

Sampa Anupurba, Angul vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 60/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.58 To 62/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2011-2012 To 2015-2016) Sampa Anupurba, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, Cuttack At: Amalapada, Talcher, Dist: Anugul, Odisha स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Ainpa 3951 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Consolidated Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 03.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2011-2012 To 2015-2016. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical To Each Other, Except Different In Figure, Therefore, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, All The Appeals Are Heard Analogously & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take Into Consideration The Facts & Grounds Mentioned In Ita No.58/Ctk/2019 For The Assessment Year 2011-2012 For Deciding All 2

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…d that the standard proforma of notice under section 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant clauses would lead to an inference of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT, 291 ITR 519(SC) has also noticed that where the Assessing Officer issues notice under section 274 of the Act in the standard proforma and the inappropriate words are not deleted, the same would postulate that the Assessing Officer was not sure as to whether he was to proceed on the basis that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furni…

Sampa Anupurba, Angul vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 59/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.58 To 62/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2011-2012 To 2015-2016) Sampa Anupurba, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, Cuttack At: Amalapada, Talcher, Dist: Anugul, Odisha स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Ainpa 3951 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Consolidated Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 03.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2011-2012 To 2015-2016. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical To Each Other, Except Different In Figure, Therefore, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, All The Appeals Are Heard Analogously & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take Into Consideration The Facts & Grounds Mentioned In Ita No.58/Ctk/2019 For The Assessment Year 2011-2012 For Deciding All 2

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…d that the standard proforma of notice under section 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant clauses would lead to an inference of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT, 291 ITR 519(SC) has also noticed that where the Assessing Officer issues notice under section 274 of the Act in the standard proforma and the inappropriate words are not deleted, the same would postulate that the Assessing Officer was not sure as to whether he was to proceed on the basis that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furni…

Sampa Anupurba, Angul vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 58/CTK/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.58 To 62/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2011-2012 To 2015-2016) Sampa Anupurba, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, Cuttack At: Amalapada, Talcher, Dist: Anugul, Odisha स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Ainpa 3951 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Consolidated Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 03.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2011-2012 To 2015-2016. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical To Each Other, Except Different In Figure, Therefore, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, All The Appeals Are Heard Analogously & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take Into Consideration The Facts & Grounds Mentioned In Ita No.58/Ctk/2019 For The Assessment Year 2011-2012 For Deciding All 2

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…d that the standard proforma of notice under section 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant clauses would lead to an inference of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT, 291 ITR 519(SC) has also noticed that where the Assessing Officer issues notice under section 274 of the Act in the standard proforma and the inappropriate words are not deleted, the same would postulate that the Assessing Officer was not sure as to whether he was to proceed on the basis that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furni…

Samapika Jena, Angul vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 57/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.53 To 57/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 & 2012-2013 To 2016-2017) Samapika Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack At-Plot No.3(P), Sector-1, Cda, Bidanasi, Cuttack-751014 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Akepj 7080 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Consolidated Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 30.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 To 2013-2014 & 2015-2016. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical To Each Other, Except Different In Figure, Therefore, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, All The Appeals Are Heard Analogously & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take Into Consideration The Facts & Grounds Mentioned In Ita No.53/Ctk/2019 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011 For Deciding All 2

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…d that the standard proforma of notice under section 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant clauses would lead to an inference of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT, 291 ITR 519(SC) has also noticed that where the Assessing Officer issues notice under section 274 of the Act in the standard proforma and the inappropriate words are not deleted, the same would postulate that the Assessing Officer was not sure as to whether he was to proceed on the basis that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furni…

Samapika Jena, Angul vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 56/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.53 To 57/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 & 2012-2013 To 2016-2017) Samapika Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack At-Plot No.3(P), Sector-1, Cda, Bidanasi, Cuttack-751014 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Akepj 7080 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Consolidated Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 30.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 To 2013-2014 & 2015-2016. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical To Each Other, Except Different In Figure, Therefore, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, All The Appeals Are Heard Analogously & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take Into Consideration The Facts & Grounds Mentioned In Ita No.53/Ctk/2019 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011 For Deciding All 2

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…d that the standard proforma of notice under section 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant clauses would lead to an inference of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT, 291 ITR 519(SC) has also noticed that where the Assessing Officer issues notice under section 274 of the Act in the standard proforma and the inappropriate words are not deleted, the same would postulate that the Assessing Officer was not sure as to whether he was to proceed on the basis that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furni…

Samapika Jena, Angul vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 55/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.53 To 57/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 & 2012-2013 To 2016-2017) Samapika Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack At-Plot No.3(P), Sector-1, Cda, Bidanasi, Cuttack-751014 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Akepj 7080 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Consolidated Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 30.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 To 2013-2014 & 2015-2016. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical To Each Other, Except Different In Figure, Therefore, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, All The Appeals Are Heard Analogously & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take Into Consideration The Facts & Grounds Mentioned In Ita No.53/Ctk/2019 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011 For Deciding All 2

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…d that the standard proforma of notice under section 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant clauses would lead to an inference of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT, 291 ITR 519(SC) has also noticed that where the Assessing Officer issues notice under section 274 of the Act in the standard proforma and the inappropriate words are not deleted, the same would postulate that the Assessing Officer was not sure as to whether he was to proceed on the basis that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furni…

Samapika Jena, Angul vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 54/CTK/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.53 To 57/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 & 2012-2013 To 2016-2017) Samapika Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack At-Plot No.3(P), Sector-1, Cda, Bidanasi, Cuttack-751014 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Akepj 7080 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Consolidated Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 30.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 To 2013-2014 & 2015-2016. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical To Each Other, Except Different In Figure, Therefore, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, All The Appeals Are Heard Analogously & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take Into Consideration The Facts & Grounds Mentioned In Ita No.53/Ctk/2019 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011 For Deciding All 2

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…d that the standard proforma of notice under section 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant clauses would lead to an inference of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT, 291 ITR 519(SC) has also noticed that where the Assessing Officer issues notice under section 274 of the Act in the standard proforma and the inappropriate words are not deleted, the same would postulate that the Assessing Officer was not sure as to whether he was to proceed on the basis that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furni…

Samapika Jena, Angul vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 53/CTK/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.53 To 57/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 & 2012-2013 To 2016-2017) Samapika Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack At-Plot No.3(P), Sector-1, Cda, Bidanasi, Cuttack-751014 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Akepj 7080 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Consolidated Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 30.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 To 2013-2014 & 2015-2016. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical To Each Other, Except Different In Figure, Therefore, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, All The Appeals Are Heard Analogously & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take Into Consideration The Facts & Grounds Mentioned In Ita No.53/Ctk/2019 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011 For Deciding All 2

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…d that the standard proforma of notice under section 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant clauses would lead to an inference of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT, 291 ITR 519(SC) has also noticed that where the Assessing Officer issues notice under section 274 of the Act in the standard proforma and the inappropriate words are not deleted, the same would postulate that the Assessing Officer was not sure as to whether he was to proceed on the basis that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furni…

DCIT 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Asp Investment Consultants P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3734/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3734/Mum/2017 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Asp Investment Income Tax, Circle 12(1)(1) Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 223, 2Nd Floor, 603, Dheeraj Savera Tower, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Rd, Khatau Mills Compound, Vs. Mumbai-20 Borivali (E), Mumbai-400 066 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aagca6735K अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri S. Michael Jerald, Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri K Shivaram & Sashank Dundu, Ar ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2020 आदेश / O R D E R महावीर ससुंह, न्याययक सदस्य/ Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri S. Michael Jerald, DRFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(2)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “A” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री एम बालगणेश, लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI M BALAGANESH, AM आयकर अपील सुं./ ITA No. 3734/Mum/2017 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) The Dy. Commissioner of M/s ASP Investment Income Tax, Circle 12(1)(1) Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 223, 2nd Floor, 603, Dheeraj Savera Tower, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Rd, Khatau Mills Compound, Vs. Mumbai-20 Borivali (E), Mumbai-400 066 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./PAN…

Sh. Kasturi Lal Mahajan, Jammu vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

ITA 46/ASR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh (Ld. CA)For Respondent: Smt. Prabhjot Kaur (Ld. CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…eld that the Standard Proforma of notice under section 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant clauses would lead to an inference of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT, 291 ITR 519(SC) has also noticed that where the Assessing Officer issues notice under section 274 of the Act in the standard ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT proforma and the inappropriate words are not deleted, the same would postulate that the Assessing Officer was not sure as to whether the assessee had concealed…

Sh Sumit Mahajan, Jammu vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

ITA 45/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh (Ld. CA)For Respondent: Smt. Prabhjot Kaur (Ld. CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…eld that the Standard Proforma of notice under section 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant clauses would lead to an inference of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT, 291 ITR 519(SC) has also noticed that where the Assessing Officer issues notice under section 274 of the Act in the standard ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT proforma and the inappropriate words are not deleted, the same would postulate that the Assessing Officer was not sure as to whether the assessee had concealed…

Sh Sumit Mahajan, Jammu vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

ITA 44/ASR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh (Ld. CA)For Respondent: Smt. Prabhjot Kaur (Ld. CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…eld that the Standard Proforma of notice under section 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant clauses would lead to an inference of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT, 291 ITR 519(SC) has also noticed that where the Assessing Officer issues notice under section 274 of the Act in the standard ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT proforma and the inappropriate words are not deleted, the same would postulate that the Assessing Officer was not sure as to whether the assessee had concealed…