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.

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 519)

Amit Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi

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

ITA 3665/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

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

…ceal" inherently carries with it the requirement of establishing that there was a conscious act or omission on the part of the assessee to hide his true income. This was also the conclusion of the Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519/161 Taxman 218. In a later decision in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369, the Supreme Court overruled its decision in Dilip N. Shroff (supra). Thereafter, in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158/189 Taxman 322 (SC) the Court clarified that Dilip N. Shroff (supra) stood overruled only to the ex…

Amit Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT Central Circle-16, Delhi

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

ITA 3664/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

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

…ceal" inherently carries with it the requirement of establishing that there was a conscious act or omission on the part of the assessee to hide his true income. This was also the conclusion of the Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519/161 Taxman 218. In a later decision in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369, the Supreme Court overruled its decision in Dilip N. Shroff (supra). Thereafter, in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158/189 Taxman 322 (SC) the Court clarified that Dilip N. Shroff (supra) stood overruled only to the ex…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Odisha vs. Odisha State Beverages Corporation Limited, Odisha

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 359/CTK/2023[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack11 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2020-2021 2021 Dcit, Aayakar Bhavan, Main Dcit, Aayakar Bhavan, Main Vs. Odisha Odisha State State Beverages Beverages 2Nd Building, Building, Rajaswas Rajaswas Vihar, Vihar, Corporation Corporation Limited., Limited., 2 Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar. Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar. Floor, Floor, Fortune Fortune Towers, Towers, S.E.Rly S.E.Rly Proj. Proj. Complex, Complex, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No. (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Satyajit Mishra, Ca Satyajit Mishra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/0 06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/0 /06/2024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 21.9.2023 Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S.270A Of 21.9.2023 Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S.270A Of The Act For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2020-2021. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In This Case Was Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In This Case Was Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In This Case Was Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 23.9.2 Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 23.9.2022 By Disallowing A Sum Of 022 By Disallowing A Sum Of Rs.3,00,00,000/ Rs.3,00,00,000/- Out Of Expenses Claimed By The Assessee On Account Of Out Of Expenses Claimed By The Assessee On Account Of License Fees U/S.40(A)(Iib) Of The Act. Simultaneously, Penalty Proceedings License Fees U/S.40(A)(Iib) Of The Act. Simultaneously, Penalty Proceedings License Fees U/S.40(A)(Iib) Of The Act. Simultaneously, Penalty Proceedings

For Appellant: Shri Satyajit Mishra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(9)Section 40

…ontravention of a mandatory condition or requirement is fatal with no further proof and as a result in our considered view the ratio decidendi laid in context of section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‚Dilip N Shroff Vs JCIT‛ reported in 291 ITR 519 (SC) and ‚Ashok Pai Vs CIT‛ reported at 292 ITR 11(SC), further by Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in plethora judgements including ‚CIT Vs Samson Pericherry‛, ‚PCIT Vs Goa Dorado‛ and ‚PCIT Vs New Era Sova Mine‛ shall still hold good even in impugned penal proceedings of section 270A of the Act. 13. Having aforesaid, in our opinion, the non-app…

Rahil Maheshkumar Nizamuddin, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxation Circle 1(2), Blr, Bangalore

ITA 379/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan &For Respondent: Sri Guru Kumar S., D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…aled any income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income to warrant the levy of penalty. Hence, the penalty imposed by the learned A.O. requires to be cancelled. 2.17 He also invited our attention to the decision of the Apex Court on Dilip Shroff’s case [291 ITR 519 (SC)], wherein the Apex Court while considering an identical issue of levy of penalty on account of the difference in valuation of FMV as at 01/4/1981 as adopted by the assessee and as finally concluded by the department on the basis of the report of the Valuation officer has held as under : Rahil Maheshkumar Nizamuddin, Bangalore Page 8 of 24 “7…

Amit Kapoor, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

ITA 1445/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1415/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, The Addl.Cit, 56/88, Rayapuram Extension, Range-1, 1St Street, Tirupur. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Adypd 3863 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. SridharFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270ASection 271D

…49 (Bom) Tax Appeal Nos. 70 of 2019 dated June 18, 2019; and v) Pr. CIT v. Goa Dourado Promotions Pvt. Ltd. [2021] 433 ITR 268 (Bom) Tax Appeal No. 18 of 2019 dated November 26, 2019 and the hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jaint CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC) on the issue of non-application of mind. Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj :: 11 :: vi) Babbuji Jacob v. ITO [2021] 430 ITR 259 (Mad) vii) CIT D. Anita Kumaran (Smt.) [2018] 11 ITR-OL 221 (Mad) (para 36) viii) CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 317 ITR 1 (SC) (para 36) ix) CIT D. Gem Granites (Karnataka) [2014] 42 taxmann.com 493 (para 29) x) CIT…

Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, Tirupur vs. Addl. CIT, Range-1, Tirupur

ITA 1415/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1415/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, The Addl.Cit, 56/88, Rayapuram Extension, Range-1, 1St Street, Tirupur. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Adypd 3863 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. SridharFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270ASection 271D

…49 (Bom) Tax Appeal Nos. 70 of 2019 dated June 18, 2019; and v) Pr. CIT v. Goa Dourado Promotions Pvt. Ltd. [2021] 433 ITR 268 (Bom) Tax Appeal No. 18 of 2019 dated November 26, 2019 and the hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Jaint CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC) on the issue of non-application of mind. Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj :: 11 :: vi) Babbuji Jacob v. ITO [2021] 430 ITR 259 (Mad) vii) CIT D. Anita Kumaran (Smt.) [2018] 11 ITR-OL 221 (Mad) (para 36) viii) CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 317 ITR 1 (SC) (para 36) ix) CIT D. Gem Granites (Karnataka) [2014] 42 taxmann.com 493 (para 29) x) CIT…

K J Somaiya and Sons Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4241/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year :2015-16 K J Somaiya & Sons Private Limited, 45-47, Somaiya Bhavan, M.G Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaack-1894-K ---- Appellant Vs. Acit -2(2)(1),Mumbai Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. --- Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri P.D.Chougule, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…ew the claim of depreciation in the return of income filed in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. At this stage, we may refer to the 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-16 following observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N Shroff (291 ITR 519) referring to the earlier decision rendered by it:- “51. The order imposing penalty is quasi-criminal in nature and, thus, burden lies on the department to establish that the assessee had concealed his income. Since burden of proof in penalty proceedings varies from that in the assessment proceeding, a finding in an assessment proceeding that a…

Nirod Kumar Sahoo, Meenabazar vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhenkanal Ward, Dhenkanal

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 43/CTK/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack02 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2012-13 Nirod Kumar Sahoo, Nirod Kumar Sahoo, Meena Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bazar, Dhenkanal Bazar, Dhenkanal-759001 Dhenkanal Dhenkanal Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Ahups 4395 K (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Natabar Panda, Adv Natabar Panda, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/0 04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02/0 /04/2024

For Appellant: Shri Natabar Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR

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

…ld 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…

Sanjeev Kumar Goyal, Hapur vs. ITO Ward-3(5), Hapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3186/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14 Sanjeev Kumar Goyal Vs. Ito Ward-3(5) 607, Railway Road, Hapur. Patel Nagar, Hapur Uttar Pradesh 245101 Pan Aatpg1790N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

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

…However, in our view addition to the income of the assessee on account of said disallowance does not justify levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Following guideline from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC), Hon’ble Madras High Court decided in CIT vs. Cafco Syndicate Shipping Co. (2007) 294 ITR 134(Mad) that disallowance on the ground that the expenditure was huge or that some vouchers were not available is not good enough to justify penalty in absence of anything more to suggest that the claim was not bonafide. There is no evidence in the cas…

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 757/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(1)Section 274

…travention of a mandatory condition or requirement is fatal with no further proof and as a result in our considered view the ratio decided and laid in context of section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‚Dilip N Shroff Vs JCIT‛ reported in 291 ITR 519 (SC) and ‚Ashok Pai Vs CIT‛ reported at 292 ITR 11(SC), further by Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in plethora judgements including ‚CIT Vs 7 Prem Prakash Agarwal vs. DCIT Samson Pericherry‛, ‚PCIT Vs Goa Dorado‛ and ‚PCIT Vs New Era Sova Mine‛ shall still hold good even in impugned penal proceedings of section270A of the Act. 13. Having afores…

Shri.Prakash R. Nair, Kollam vs. DCIT, Kollam

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 141/COCH/2021[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 148(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80Section 801A(9)Section 80HSection 80I

…icial precedents. Continuing further, the argument is predicated on a false premise, i.e., that the two limbs of s. 271(1)(c) constitute two different charges. Even as clarified in Dilip 17 Prakash R. Nair v. Dy.CIT, Central Circle N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC), Explanation 1 is applicable to both. Why, then, can the notice be not read as for concealing, or furnishing inaccurate, particulars of income? It is only the assessee who knows the facts or, otherwise, fails to exhibit his explanation w.r.t. the Revenue’s case as already set out/communicated. This non-substantiation of it’s case attracts Ex…

Ramnik Sushil Chaudhry, Mumbai vs. Assistant .CIT Circle (3), Thane

The appeals are allowed

ITA 2820/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh R ShahFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…notice- not striking off irrelevant matter – vitiate penalty proceedings? Question No.2: Has Kaushalya failed to discuss the aspect of ‘prejudice’? Question No.3: What is effect of Supreme Court’s decision in Delip N Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2001] 161 Taxman 218/291 ITR 519 (SC), on issue of non-application of mind when irrelevant portions of printed notices are not struck off?” 14. The Full Bench in so far as the question no.1 is concerned in para 18 of the judgment held that a mere defect in the notice (not striking off the irrelevant matter) vitiates the proceedings. This is what is held in para 181 of judgment.…

M/S Sanofi India Ltd (Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1606/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

…r concealed particulars of income which lead to the above additions and disallowances. Hence, the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) are clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. (1) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. Jt.CIT (291 ITR 519) and in the case of T. Ashok Pai vs. CIT (292 ITR 11) has held that after the introduction of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) deeming concealment the requirement of proof of mens rea on the part of the revenue would no longer be necessary The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the role of Explanation 1 was only to place burden of proof sq…

ACIT- 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Mm/S Sanofi India Limited (Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd)., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1302/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

…r concealed particulars of income which lead to the above additions and disallowances. Hence, the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) are clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. (1) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. Jt.CIT (291 ITR 519) and in the case of T. Ashok Pai vs. CIT (292 ITR 11) has held that after the introduction of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) deeming concealment the requirement of proof of mens rea on the part of the revenue would no longer be necessary The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the role of Explanation 1 was only to place burden of proof sq…

Yoonus Kadavath Peedikayil, Kannur vs. ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Kannur

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 913/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasyoonus Kadavath Peedikayil The Income Tax Officer M/S. Modern Enterprises Ward – 1 & Tps Kakkad Road Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Kannur 670005 Kannothumchal [Pan:Ccwpk6415P] Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

…lap or the difference a thin line, often blurred, as observed in A.M. Shah v. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 415 (Guj), to though no legal effect inasmuch as Explanation 1 to s. 271(1)(c), as is trite law, clarified by the Apex Court, as in Dilip Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC), is applicable to both limbs of the provision. Again, even as observed by the Bench during hearing, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) may be initiated on more than one adjustment to the returned income in assessment, i.e., include instances of both concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income – a common incidence. What default, then, one…

Shri Santosh Kumar Agarwala, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 190/CTK/2023[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack13 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.189 & 190/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Santosh Kumar Santosh Kumar Agarwala, Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-2(1), Sector-6, Cda, Cuttack 6, Cda, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaspa 3698Q (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth Mohit Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/07 7/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/0 /07/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Mohit ShethFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr

Section 148

…different meanings. Therefore it is very much imperative for the AO to strike off the irrelevant limb so as to make the assessee aware as to what is the charge against him and as such the assessee can respond accordingly. In case of Dilip N Shroff vs. JCIT (291 ITR 519) (SC) Held that where the AO issues notice u/s.274 of the LT. Act. in the standard proforma and the inappropriate words are not deleted the same would postulate that the AO was not sure as to whether he was to proceed on the basis that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of his P a g e 7 |…

Shri Santosh Kumar Agarwala, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 189/CTK/2023[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack13 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.189 & 190/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Santosh Kumar Santosh Kumar Agarwala, Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-2(1), Sector-6, Cda, Cuttack 6, Cda, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaspa 3698Q (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth Mohit Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/07 7/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/0 /07/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Mohit ShethFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr

Section 148

…different meanings. Therefore it is very much imperative for the AO to strike off the irrelevant limb so as to make the assessee aware as to what is the charge against him and as such the assessee can respond accordingly. In case of Dilip N Shroff vs. JCIT (291 ITR 519) (SC) Held that where the AO issues notice u/s.274 of the LT. Act. in the standard proforma and the inappropriate words are not deleted the same would postulate that the AO was not sure as to whether he was to proceed on the basis that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of his P a g e 7 |…

Kishor Digambar Patil, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Nashik

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 55/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 54 & 55/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kishor Digambar Patil, 03, Saras Apartment, Patil Lane 04, College Rd., Nashik – 422005 Pan: Aarpp2052J . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Shardul Sonawane & Ms Abhilasha PawarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath Murkunde

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

…ontravention of a mandatory condition or requirement is fatal with no further proof and as a result in our considered view the ratio decidendi laid in context of section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‚Dilip N Shroff Vs JCIT‛ reported in 291 ITR 519 (SC) and ‚Ashok Pai Vs CIT‛ reported at 292 ITR 11(SC), further by Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in plethora judgements including ‚CIT Vs Samson Pericherry‛, ‚PCIT Vs Goa Dorado‛ and ‚PCIT Vs New Era Sova Mine‛ shall still hold good even in impugned penal proceedings of section 270A of the Act. ITAT-Pune Page 9 of 20 ITA No.54 & 55/PUN/2023…

Kishor Digambar Patil, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Nashik

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 54/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 54 & 55/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kishor Digambar Patil, 03, Saras Apartment, Patil Lane 04, College Rd., Nashik – 422005 Pan: Aarpp2052J . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Shardul Sonawane & Ms Abhilasha PawarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath Murkunde

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

…ontravention of a mandatory condition or requirement is fatal with no further proof and as a result in our considered view the ratio decidendi laid in context of section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‚Dilip N Shroff Vs JCIT‛ reported in 291 ITR 519 (SC) and ‚Ashok Pai Vs CIT‛ reported at 292 ITR 11(SC), further by Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in plethora judgements including ‚CIT Vs Samson Pericherry‛, ‚PCIT Vs Goa Dorado‛ and ‚PCIT Vs New Era Sova Mine‛ shall still hold good even in impugned penal proceedings of section 270A of the Act. ITAT-Pune Page 9 of 20 ITA No.54 & 55/PUN/2023…

Neelam Garg, Karnal vs. ITO, Ward No. 3, Karnal

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6250/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargneelam Garg, Vs. Ito, Hem Chand Jain, H. No. 2, Ward No. 3, Huda Staff Owarter, No. 1, Karnal Sector-13, Extn, Karnal, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ainpg2119D Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Sachdeva, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/06/2023

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sachdeva, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54F

…ticulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot be amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.” That apart, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and Another [2007] 291 ITR 519 has held as under: “Clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, categorically states that penalty would be leviable if the assessee conceals particulars of his income or furnishes inaccurate particulars thereof. But by reason of such concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars alone, the assessee does not ipso facto become l…

Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT

Amit Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi

Amit Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT Central Circle-16, Delhi

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Odisha vs. Odisha State Beverages Corporation Limited, Odisha

Rahil Maheshkumar Nizamuddin, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxation Circle 1(2), Blr, Bangalore

Amit Kapoor, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, Tirupur vs. Addl. CIT, Range-1, Tirupur

K J Somaiya and Sons Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

Nirod Kumar Sahoo, Meenabazar vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhenkanal Ward, Dhenkanal

Sanjeev Kumar Goyal, Hapur vs. ITO Ward-3(5), Hapur

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

Shri.Prakash R. Nair, Kollam vs. DCIT, Kollam

Ramnik Sushil Chaudhry, Mumbai vs. Assistant .CIT Circle (3), Thane

M/S Sanofi India Ltd (Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

ACIT- 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Mm/S Sanofi India Limited (Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd)., Mumbai

Yoonus Kadavath Peedikayil, Kannur vs. ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Kannur

Shri Santosh Kumar Agarwala, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1), Cuttack

Shri Santosh Kumar Agarwala, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1), Cuttack

Kishor Digambar Patil, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Nashik

Kishor Digambar Patil, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Nashik

Neelam Garg, Karnal vs. ITO, Ward No. 3, Karnal