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 366,470 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

A2Z Infra Engineering Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT- Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 941/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…olds two distinctive meanings and carry different connotations. The two expressions cannot be interchanged or interpreted for one another, as has been held in several judgments including Shri T. Ashok Pai vs. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC); Dilip N Shroff v. JCIT 291 ITR 519 (SC). As both the limbs i.e. ‘concealment of particulars of income’ and ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 5 of income’ carry different connotations, it is incumbent upon the AO to satisfy himself before initiation of penalty proceedings that the case of the assessee falls eit…

A2Z Infra Engineering Limited, Gurgaon vs. CCIT- Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 940/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…olds two distinctive meanings and carry different connotations. The two expressions cannot be interchanged or interpreted for one another, as has been held in several judgments including Shri T. Ashok Pai vs. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC); Dilip N Shroff v. JCIT 291 ITR 519 (SC). As both the limbs i.e. ‘concealment of particulars of income’ and ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 5 of income’ carry different connotations, it is incumbent upon the AO to satisfy himself before initiation of penalty proceedings that the case of the assessee falls eit…

A2Z Infra Engineering Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT CC-2, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 939/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…olds two distinctive meanings and carry different connotations. The two expressions cannot be interchanged or interpreted for one another, as has been held in several judgments including Shri T. Ashok Pai vs. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC); Dilip N Shroff v. JCIT 291 ITR 519 (SC). As both the limbs i.e. ‘concealment of particulars of income’ and ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 5 of income’ carry different connotations, it is incumbent upon the AO to satisfy himself before initiation of penalty proceedings that the case of the assessee falls eit…

DCIT-Central Circle-2, Faridabad vs. A2Z Infra Engineers Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 812/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…olds two distinctive meanings and carry different connotations. The two expressions cannot be interchanged or interpreted for one another, as has been held in several judgments including Shri T. Ashok Pai vs. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC); Dilip N Shroff v. JCIT 291 ITR 519 (SC). As both the limbs i.e. ‘concealment of particulars of income’ and ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 5 of income’ carry different connotations, it is incumbent upon the AO to satisfy himself before initiation of penalty proceedings that the case of the assessee falls eit…

DCIT CC-2, Faridabad vs. A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Services Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 811/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…olds two distinctive meanings and carry different connotations. The two expressions cannot be interchanged or interpreted for one another, as has been held in several judgments including Shri T. Ashok Pai vs. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC); Dilip N Shroff v. JCIT 291 ITR 519 (SC). As both the limbs i.e. ‘concealment of particulars of income’ and ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 5 of income’ carry different connotations, it is incumbent upon the AO to satisfy himself before initiation of penalty proceedings that the case of the assessee falls eit…

A2Z Maintenance & Engineering Services Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2631/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…olds two distinctive meanings and carry different connotations. The two expressions cannot be interchanged or interpreted for one another, as has been held in several judgments including Shri T. Ashok Pai vs. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC); Dilip N Shroff v. JCIT 291 ITR 519 (SC). As both the limbs i.e. ‘concealment of particulars of income’ and ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 5 of income’ carry different connotations, it is incumbent upon the AO to satisfy himself before initiation of penalty proceedings that the case of the assessee falls eit…

ACIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi vs. Unitech Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 8914/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

…) of the Act refers to blameworthy conduct for contravention of the Act and it equally applies to tax delinquency cases. In Dharamendra Textile Processors (supra), it was held that the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519/161 Taxman 218, was wrongly decided as it did not consider the effect and relevance of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The object behind the enactment of section 271 (1)(c) along with Explanations was to provide for a remedy for loss of revenue and imposes a civil liability. Wilful conduct, etc., is not an essential ingredient. 12. However, it is n…

Pramod N. Prajapati, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vapi

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 621/SRT/2018[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Dec 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Pramod N. Prajapati, Pr.Cit-1, B-1, Panchvati Apartment, Valsad. Vs. Tokarkhada, Silvasa, D&Nh-396230 Pan No. Accpp 2457 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Hasmukhbhai N. Prajapati, Pr.Cit-1, E 8, Gokul Vihar, Tokarkhada, Valsad. Vs. Silvasa, D&Nh-396230 Pan No. Accpp 2456 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 154Section 250Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…assessment cannot be subjected to penalty as held in CIT Vs Manilal Tarachand 254 ITR 630 (Guj.). 6. Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate in facts and in law that estimate of business income shall not be liable to penalty as held in Dilip M Shroff Vs JCIT 2007 291 ITR 519 (SC) and CIT Vs Mussadilal Rambharose 165 ITR 14 (SC) and there is complete absence of gross r wilful omission to disclose material facts as held in CIT Vs Subhash Trading Co. 221 ITR 110 (Guj). Pramod N Prajapati Vs PCIT & 1 Anr. 7. Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that assessee has disclosed full and true disclosure of all materials and has…

Sheetal Wireless Technologies P Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Cir- 06, Pune

ITA 591/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.591/Pun/2021 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sheetal Wireless Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Flat No.17, 2Nd Floor, Sheshadri Society, Rambaug Colony, Paud Road, Pune – 411 038 . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aahcs4069D बनधम / V/S. . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent Dcit, Circle-6, Pune द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 01/12/2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G.D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2015-16 Is Assailed Against The First Appellate Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short “Cit(A) /Nfac”] Dt. 08/09/2021 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Emanated Out Of Penalty Order [For Short “Po”] Of Dy. Commissioner Of Income, Circle-6, Pune U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dt.28/06/2018 [For Short “Ao”] U/S.143(3) Of The Act Dt. 08.12.2017. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 4

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…upon by the appellant as well the respondent and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of settled legal position forewarned to either parties. 5. In the light of judgement rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Dilip N Shroff Vs JCIT” reported at 291 ITR 519 (SC), and of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay, in plethora of cases inter-alia “CIT Vs Samson Pericherry” reportedin 392 ITR 4, and recently in “Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs DCIT” reported at 434 ITR 1, we are on the considered view that, since the provision of section 271(1)(c) is calamitous, albeit commercial, consequences, and mandator…

Shri Surendra Singh Bhatia, Indore vs. The JCIT-3, Indore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 252/IND/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Advocate with Shri Gagan TiwariFor Respondent: 28.09.2022
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 271ASection 271DSection 274Section 41(1)

…ngs, no penalty can be imposed. For such proposition, reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) CIT vs. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons (1972) 83 ITR 369 (SC) ii) CIT vs. Anwar All (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC) iii) Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT & Anr. (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) iv) Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. vs. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC) v) T. Ashok Pal vs. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC) ITA No.252/Ind/2017 (Shri Surendra Singh Bhatia vs. JCIT) Asst.Year.– 2008-09 - 9 - vi) ACIT vs. VIP Industries Ltd. (2009) 122 TTJ (Mum) 289 In view of the above facts, it is submitted that since in the instant case, the app…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 234/CTK/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…ann.com 250 (Karnataka), had held that non-striking of inappropriate words in the penalty notice would lead to the cancellation of the penalty levied. It was also the submission that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff, reported in [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC), has observed that while issuing the notice u/s.274/271(1)(c) of the Act in the standard format, the AO should delete the inappropriate words in the paragraph otherwise it may indicate that the AO himself was not sure as to whether he had proceeded on the basis that the assessee had concealed its income or had furnished the inaccurate partic…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 233/CTK/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…ann.com 250 (Karnataka), had held that non-striking of inappropriate words in the penalty notice would lead to the cancellation of the penalty levied. It was also the submission that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff, reported in [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC), has observed that while issuing the notice u/s.274/271(1)(c) of the Act in the standard format, the AO should delete the inappropriate words in the paragraph otherwise it may indicate that the AO himself was not sure as to whether he had proceeded on the basis that the assessee had concealed its income or had furnished the inaccurate partic…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 202/CTK/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…ann.com 250 (Karnataka), had held that non-striking of inappropriate words in the penalty notice would lead to the cancellation of the penalty levied. It was also the submission that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff, reported in [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC), has observed that while issuing the notice u/s.274/271(1)(c) of the Act in the standard format, the AO should delete the inappropriate words in the paragraph otherwise it may indicate that the AO himself was not sure as to whether he had proceeded on the basis that the assessee had concealed its income or had furnished the inaccurate partic…

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 201/CTK/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…ann.com 250 (Karnataka), had held that non-striking of inappropriate words in the penalty notice would lead to the cancellation of the penalty levied. It was also the submission that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff, reported in [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC), has observed that while issuing the notice u/s.274/271(1)(c) of the Act in the standard format, the AO should delete the inappropriate words in the paragraph otherwise it may indicate that the AO himself was not sure as to whether he had proceeded on the basis that the assessee had concealed its income or had furnished the inaccurate partic…

S.M.Enterprisera, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 200/CTK/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…ann.com 250 (Karnataka), had held that non-striking of inappropriate words in the penalty notice would lead to the cancellation of the penalty levied. It was also the submission that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff, reported in [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC), has observed that while issuing the notice u/s.274/271(1)(c) of the Act in the standard format, the AO should delete the inappropriate words in the paragraph otherwise it may indicate that the AO himself was not sure as to whether he had proceeded on the basis that the assessee had concealed its income or had furnished the inaccurate partic…

S M Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 199/CTK/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…ann.com 250 (Karnataka), had held that non-striking of inappropriate words in the penalty notice would lead to the cancellation of the penalty levied. It was also the submission that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff, reported in [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC), has observed that while issuing the notice u/s.274/271(1)(c) of the Act in the standard format, the AO should delete the inappropriate words in the paragraph otherwise it may indicate that the AO himself was not sure as to whether he had proceeded on the basis that the assessee had concealed its income or had furnished the inaccurate partic…

Pandit Gangadgar Kawale, Nanded vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Nanded

ITA 1409/PUN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1409/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Pandit Gangadhar Kawale A/P Shelgaon, Umari, Nanded – 431807 Maharashtra . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan:Avlpk1461F बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, . . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Ward 3, Nanded द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Pratikh Sandhbhor Revenue By : Shri M.G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing: 30/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Aurangabad [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 27/03/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Emanated Out Of Order Of Penalty [For Short “Po”] Dt. 24/03/2017 Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Nanded [For Short “Ao”] U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Pratikh SandhbhorFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…॥ आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, पुणे “बी” न्यायपीठ, पुणे में ॥ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.1409/PUN/2019 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Pandit Gangadhar Kawale A/P Shelgaon, Umari, Nanded – 431807 Maharashtra . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant PAN:AVLPK1461F बनाम / V/s. Income Tax Officer, . . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Ward 3, Nanded द्वारा / Appearances Assessee by : Shri Pratikh Sandhbhor Revenue by : Shri M.G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusiv…

Kamlesh M. Kanungo, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1618/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalkamlesh M. Kanungo, C/O. D.C. Bothra& Co. Llp (Ca), (Formerly Known As D.C. Bothra & Co.), 297, Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion, 1St Floor, Opp. Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400004. Pan: Abbpk9675R ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Cit- Cc-1(4), 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Annexe Building, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Rajkumar Singh Respondent By : Sh. Manoj Sinha Date Of Hearing : 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 10.02.2021 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2007-08. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Sinha
Section 133Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…shalya's insistence that the previous proceedings supply justification and cure the defect in penalty proceedings has not met acceptance. [Para 186] Question No. 3: What is effect of Supreme Court's decision in Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 161 Taxman 218/291 ITR 519 (SC), on issue of non- application of mind when irrelevant portions of printed notices are not struck off ? In Dilip N. Shroff, case (supra) for the Supreme Court, it is of 'some significance that in the standard Pro-forma used by the Assessing Officer in issuing a notice despite the fact that the same postulates that inappropriate words and para…

Shinde Somanath Appasaheb, Ahmednagar vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Ahmednagar

ITA 8/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.08/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shinde Somnath Appasaheb Shinde Vasti, Shirdi, Tal Rahata, Dist Ahmednagar – 423109 Pan : Emeps4342M . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनधम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Ahmednagar . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 27/09/2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27/09/2022 आदेश / Order Per G.D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2013-14 Is Assailed Against The First Appellate Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 25/09/2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Emanated Out Of Penalty Order [For Short “Po”] Of Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ahmednagar [For Short “Ao”] U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dt.16/06/2017. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 5

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…॥ आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, पुणे “बी” न्यायपीठ, पुणे में ॥ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE“B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपऩल सं. / ITA No.08/PUN/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shinde Somnath Appasaheb Shinde Vasti, Shirdi, Tal Rahata, Dist Ahmednagar – 423109 PAN : EMEPS4342M . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनधम / V/s. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Ahmednagar . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date of conclusive Hearing :…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Pune vs. Fiat India Automobiles Ltd, Pune

ITA 2296/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 2295 & 2296/Pun/2017 करनििाारण वषा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . अऩीऱाथी / Appellant Circle-1(2), Pune. बनाम / V/S. Fiat India Automobiles Limited, B-19A, Ranjangaon Midc, Shirur, Pune. . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pan : Aaacf1716D द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Prashant Gadekar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 26/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Present Appeals Of The Revenue Are Assailed Against Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 13, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 27/07/2016 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Sprung Out Of Orders Of Penalty [For Short “Po”] Of Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1(2), Pune [For Short “Ao”] Dt. 29/03/2017 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2009-10 & 2010-11. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gadekar
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

…आयकर अपीऱीय न्यायाधिकरण, पुणे न्यायपीठ, “सी” बेंच पुणे में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE “C” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No. 2295 & 2296/PUN/2017 करनििाारण वषा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, . . . . . . . अऩीऱाथी / Appellant Circle-1(2), Pune. बनाम / V/s. Fiat India Automobiles Limited, B-19A, Ranjangaon MIDC, Shirur, Pune. . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent PAN : AAACF1716D द्वारा / Appearances Assessee by : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue by : Shri Prashant Gadekar सुनव…