How many judgments cite Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT?

565 judgments on BharatTax cite Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT (291 ITR 519), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 274, Section 143(3), Section 132, Section 153C, Section 250.

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 274 Section 143(3)Section 132 Section 153C Section 250 Section 153A Section 270A

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

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

Judgments citing Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT

Suresh Dutt Malhotra, Panipat vs. ACIT, Panipat

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2575/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Adv., Shri V. Rajkumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Sr. DR

Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(ii)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54BSection 54F(1)

…d in same ITR Volume, it is held that penalty cannot be levied solely on 6 Assessment year 2007-08 basis of reasons given in original order of assessment. The Hon’ble 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 be adopted in penalty proceedings and the authorities have to consider the matter afresh from different angle. The statute requires a satisfaction on the part of the Assessing Officer. He is required to arrive at a satisfaction so as to show that there is primary…

V.K.C.Jayamohan, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1876/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sendamarai KannanFor Respondent: Mr.V.Sreehdhar,JCIT,D.R

Section 271(1)(C)Section 274

…ficer must be found to have failed to prove that his explanation is not only not bona fide but all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his * [2009] 317 ITR 1 (SC). ** [2008]306 ITR 277(SC). *** [2010] 1 GSTR 66 (SC). **** [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC). income were not disclosed by him. It was then held that the explanation must be preceded by a finding as to how and in what manner, the assessee had furnished the particulars of his income. The court ultimately went on to hold that the element of mens rea was essential. It was only on the point of mens rea that the judgment in Dilip N. Shr…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(2), Kolkata vs. Shri Liadhar Agarwala, Kolkata

ITA 1605/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271A

…made to purchase peace or for other similar reason, surrender cannot amount to admission, constituting evidence of concealment in penalty proceedings. I also rely on the judgement of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. .Jt.CIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) wherein it was held that Imposition of penalty is not automatic. Levy of penalty is not only discretionary in nature, but such discretion is required to be exercised on the part of the Assessing Officer, keeping the relevant factors in mind. In this regard, I would like to state that assessment has been completed based on the explanations gi…

Sh. Ashok Kumar Chauhan, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2988/DEL/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri N.S.Saini

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…that the standard proforma of notice under section 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant clauses 5 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 furnis…

M/S. Tefal India Household Appliances Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3727/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

Section 2Section 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 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 furnis…

DCIT, Cir-3(2), Port Blair vs. Andaman & Nicobar State Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Port Blair

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 576/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13 Dcit, Circle-3(2), Mb- V/S. Andaman & Nicobar State 210, Shaidpur, Port Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Blair-74416 Ma Road, Phoenix Bay, Port Blair-744101 [Pan No.Aaajt 1043 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurbh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 15-11-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 30-11-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 Kolkata’S Order Dated 09.12.2016 Passed In Case No.1775/Cia-1/Circle-3(2)P.B/2014-15 Reviving Assessing Officer’S Action Imposing Penalty Of ¤56,31,415/- In Proceeding U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Case Called Twice. None Appears At Assessee’S Behest. It Is Accordingly Proceed Ex Parte Against Assessee In The Instant Case. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Ground Pleaded In This Instant Appeal Seeks To Revive The Assessing Officer’S Action Imposing Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of ₹56,31,415/- In His Order Dated 26.08.2015 As Reversed In The Cit(A)’S Order Under Challenge As Follows:- “I Have Considered The A.O'S Finding & Perused The Written Submission Along With The Assessment Order. The A.O. Had Impose The Penalty Under Section

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36

…hodayEswara (83 ITR 369)(SC) reported in same ITR Volume, it is held that Penalty cannot be levied solely on basis of reasons given in original order of assessment. The hon'ble Supreme Court has 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 be adopted in penalty proceedings and the authorities have to consider the matter afresh from different angle. In view of the above discussion, it is found that on merits of the issue in dispute i.e. disallowance of provision for NPA, held by the A.O. as not allo…

ACIT, Central Circle - 2(3), Kolkata vs. Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1539/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271A

…by the assessee (for which no evidence, papers / documents, stock, cash etc were found during the search operation) in order to buy peace of mind and avoid any further litigation. The assessee has brought on record the case law of Dilip N Shroff vs CIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC). In this case law the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that imposition of penalty is not automatic. Levy of penalty is not only discretionary in nature, but such discretion is required to be exercised on 2 A.Y. 2013-2014 Vijay Kumar Agarwal the part of the Assessing Officer keeping the relevant factors in mind. The AR has also brought on re…

Sri Saurabh Tiwary, Jamshedpur vs. ACIT Cir-3, Jamshedpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 284/RAN/2017[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Nov 2018

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Devasis Sanigrahi, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.284 /Ran/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Saurabh Tiwary, Vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Jamshedpur Bunglow No.9999/287, Vijaya Garden, 5th Phase, Baridih, Jamshedpur PAN/GIR No.AGFPT 6115 J (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Devasis Sanigrahi, CA Revenue by : Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT Date of Hearing : 27/11/ 2018 Date of Pronouncement : 28/11/ 2018 O R D E R Per N.S.Saini, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-Jamshedpu…

Shri Niranjan Kumar Agarwal, Dhanbad vs. ITO WD-2(1), Dhanbad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 329/RAN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 Nov 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.S Saini

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 22Section 22(4)Section 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 furnis…

ACIT, Central Circle - 2(3), Kolkata vs. Vikash Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1540/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. M.Balaganesh & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Raviacit, Vs Vishal Agarwal, Central Circle-2(3), Room No.403, 4Thfloor, 547, Block-N, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, New Alipore, E.M.Bye Pass, Kolkata-700107. Kolkata-700053. Pan-Adcpa9882F Acit, Vikashagarwal, Vs Central Circle-2(3), Room No.403, 547, Block-N, 4Thfloor, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 110, New Alipore, Kolkata- Shanti Pally, E.M.Bye Pass, Kolkata- 700053. 700107. Pan-Adcpa9882F C.O.No.-106/Kol/2017 (In Ita No.1537/Kol/2017) (Assessment Year-2013-14) Vs Vishal Agarwal, Acit, 547, Block-N, Central Circle-2(3), Room New Alipore, No.403, 4Thfloor, Aayakar Kolkata-700053. Bhawan, Poorva, 110, Shanti Pan-Adcpa9882F Pally, E.M.Bye Pass, Kolkata-700107. (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.-107/Kol/2017 (In Ita No.1540/Kol/2017) (Assessment Year-2013-14) Vs Acit, Vikash Agarwal, 547, Block-N, Central Circle-2(3), Room No.403, 4Thfloor, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, New Alipore, Kolkata-700053. Pan-Adcpa9882F 110, Shanti Pally, E.M.Bye Pass, Kolkata-700107. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. G.Hangshing, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. A.K.Tibrewal, Fca &Amit Agarwal, Adv.

Section 132(4)Section 271A

…me under the purview of undisclosed income as explained in Explanation (c) of section 271AAB of the Act and requested to drop the penalty. Further reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N.Shroff vs Jt.CIT reproted in 291 ITR 519 (SC) for the proposition that the imposition of penalty is not automatic and levy of penalty is not only discretionary and to be exercised by the AO. The AO considering the submissions above held that the facts of the cited judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court does not cover the facts of the case on hand and by applying the decision of Hon’ble Supr…

ACIT, Central Circle - 2(3), Kolkata vs. Vishal Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1537/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Section 132(4)Section 271A

ACIT, Central Circle - 2(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Shailaja Park Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1536/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Section 132(4)Section 271A

Smt. Shipra Jain, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the penalty so levied u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby deleted and appeals are allowed

ITA 922/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri J. C. Kulhari (JCIT)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…relevance with the cost of construction. Hence, on such addition which is on account of estimation of cost of construction by DVO, no penalty is leviable. For this purpose, reliance was placed on the following cases:- • Dilip N. Shroff Vs. JCIT & Anr. (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that only because the opinion of registered valuer is not accepted or some other expert gives another opinion, is not by itself sufficient for arriving at a conclusion that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars attracting penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Primary burden of proof of furnishing inaccurate parti…

Solidity Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 11(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1772/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodsolidity Developers Private Dy. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., Maratha Mandir Marg, Tax -11(2)(2), Babasaheb Gawde Chowk, Vs. Mumbai. Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008 Pan – Aaocs0518G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Matalia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem M., D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 43B

…of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Thus show cause notice is vitiated and penalty is liable to be cancelled simply on this ground as held by Hon’ble SC in the case of CIT Vs. SSA Emerald Meadows 73 taxmann.com 248 and in the case of Dilip shroff 291 ITR 519. 5. That the approval given by Ld. JCIT to LAO for levy of penalty was without application of mind and therefore penalty order is liable to be cancelled on this ground. 6. Prayer for interim order: I t i s p r a y e d t o i s s u e d i r e c t i o n t o L A O n o t t o i n i t i a t e p r o s e c u t i o n proceedings pending disposal of this app…

Ritesh P. Burad, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3446/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Shri Ritesh P. Burad Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of 17B, Prena Building Income Tax, Circle-2 Swagatam Housing Complex Thane Jesal Park, Bhayander(E), Thane Pan/Gir No.Adgpb7399N (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 131Section 133ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM Shri Ritesh P. Burad Vs. Asst. Commissioner of 17B, Prena Building Income Tax, Circle-2 Swagatam Housing Complex Thane Jesal Park, Bhayander(E), Thane PAN/GIR No.ADGPB7399N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Revenue by Shri E Sridhar Date of Hearing 18/09/2018 Date of Pronouncement 26/10/2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- 3, Thane dated 17/02/2017 for A.Y.2011-12 in the matter of imposition of p…

The DCIT, Circle-3(1), Baroda vs. M/S/ Amar Mining Company, Baroda

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1032/AHD/2016[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 1998-99

For Appellant: Apoorva Bharadwaj, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Soparkar &

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

…s and the findings in the assessment proceedings cannot be made a ground for levy of penalty. He relied on the following decisions: i) Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. Vs. CIT 123 ITR 457 ii) Khoday Eswarsa & Sons 83 ITR 369 iii) Dilip N Shroff Vs. Jt. CIT 228 291 ITR 519 3.7. Ld. Authorized Representative has further submitted that the mere fact that the appellant had not been able to produce these parties cannot be made a ground for levy of penalty.' He also submitted that without these purchases, the assessee firm could not have effected sales and he further submitted that there was a difference of opinion bet…

Amit Capital & Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3443/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2006-07 Amit Capital & Securities Income Tax Officer Private Limited, Range-2(1)(1), बनाम/ 47A, 3Rd Floor, Plot No.308, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Hanuman Building, Perin M. K. Road, Nariman Street, Fort, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaca4219Q "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Govind Jhaveri Shri Satishchandra Rajore-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 04/10/2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/10/2018

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…case and find that the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of DCIT vs Dr. Santa Milind Davare in ITA No.1789/Mum/2014 dated 21-12-2016 has considered the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the light of Supreme Court judgement in the case of Dilip N Shroff 291 ITR 519 (SC) and observed that there should be application of mind on the part of the AO at the time of issuing notice. Since the co-ordinate bench has already considered the judgement of Honble Bombay High Court, we are of the view that case law relied upon by the Ld.DR is not applicable to the facts of the present case." 8. In so far as the judgment o…

Hanuman Singh Rathore, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 1517/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1517/Mum/2017, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Hiwase, DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…fide, with an intent to evade payment of income-tax. Recompense had been provided for in section 234 of the Act by way of levy of interest, which, in the present case, had been paid without demur. In Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC): It was held that Clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Income-fax Apt, 1961, categorically states that penalty would be leviable if the assessee conceals particulars of his income or furnishes 8 I.T.A. No. 1517/Mum/2017 Hanuman Singh Rathore, inaccurate particulars thereof. But by reason of such concealment or furnishing of inaccurate partic…

Shri Sanjay Mittra, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5206/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2009-10 Sanjay Mittra, Dcit, Central Circle- 26, G-25, Green Park, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Rana, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…culars of income. Therefore, the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) in pursuance to the said notice deserves to be set-aside. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions :- 4 i. SSA’S Emerald Meadows 242 Taxman 180. ii. Dilip N Shroff, 291 ITR 519. iii. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565. iv. Samson Perinchery, 392 ITR 4. v. Sahiwal Investment & Trading Co., ITA No.4913/Del/2015 dated 18.07.2018. vi. Dr. Sarita Milin Davare, 184 TTJ 9. vii. Jeetmal Choraria, 91 taxmann.com 311. viii. Shri Sachin Arora, ITA No.118/Agra/2015 dated 19.12.2017. 9. Referring to the following decis…

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Laxmichand D. Rohira, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed and cross-objections filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 1178/MUM/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.1178 To 1184/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2007-08) Dy. Cit Cc-3(4) Central बिधम/ Shri Lakhmichand D. Rohira, 2301, Dheeraj Heigh Range-3 Vs. Gaurav, New Link Rd, Room No. 1915, 19Th Floor, Andheri (W), Mumbai- Air India Bldg, Nariman 400053. Point, Mumbai-400021. Co. Nos. 250 To 256/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita. Nos.1183, 1178, 1179, 1180, 1181 1182 & 1184/M/2016) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07& 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Lakhmichand D. Dy. Cit Cc-3(4) Central Rohira, 2301, Dheeraj Heigh Range-3 Vs. Gaurav, New Link Rd, Room No. 1915, 19Th Floor, Andheri (W), Mumbai- Air India Bldg, Nariman 400053. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adnpr6420M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2018

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (DR)

Section 132

…oth the charges, concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income are different although the consequence of both the charges may be concealed income. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dillip N. Shrof vs. JCIT 291 ITR 519 and T. Ashok Pai 292 ITR 11 has also appreciated that these two expressions convey two different connotations. When the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically stated in these decisions that both the connotations has different meanings. Perhaps the "I" Bench in the case of Mahesh M. Gandhi vs. ACITwhile confirming the penalty, on which the learne…