Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

358 ITR 593Supreme Court of India2013#159 most cited

What is Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Once the Assessing Officer records satisfaction regarding concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, the onus shifts to the assessee, and if not discharged, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied without requiring separate detailed satisfaction.

443

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT · 358 ITR 593 · Section 271(1)(c) penalty · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · onus framework · AO satisfaction · levy of penalty · Income Tax Act 1961

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 1961Section 132Section 148Section 153A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 271aabsection 271aafurnishing inaccurate particulars of incomefurnishing inaccurate particularspenalty u/s 271(1)(c)penalty under section 271(1)(c)section 271asection 274concealment of incomelevy of penaltysection 271(1)section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

Punjab National Bank vs. Addl. CIT, Range-14

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 614/DEL/2006[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2020AY 2004-2005

Bench: Ms Sushma Chowla & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) & Punjab National Bank Vs. Dcit Ho Accounts & Taxation Circle - 14(1) Deptt. New Delhi Ho : 5-Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan No. Aaacp 0165 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K. Sampath, Adv. Revenue By Shri Amit Jain, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/10/2020 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…e AO. He therefore, submitted that penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) be deleted. The Learned DR on the other hand, supported the order of AO and CIT(A) and further relied on the decision in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 358 ITR 593 (SC) and Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. reported in 191 Taxman 179 (Delhi) and thus supported the order of lower authorities. 43. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty has been upheld for denial of cl…

Kailash Chander Malhotra HUF, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-45(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5960/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2014-15 Kailash Chander Malhotra, Huf, Vs Acit, L-7A (Lgf), South Extension Part-2, Circle-45(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaahk4297H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th April 2019 Of The Cit(A)-15, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

…er section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is concerned, i.e., under which limb the AO has initiated penalty proceedings, the ld. DR, referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Private Limited vs CIT, reported in 358 ITR 593, drew the attention of the Bench to Para 10 of the order which reads as under:- “10. The AO has to satisfy whether the penalty proceedings be initiated or not during the course of the assessment proceedings and the AO is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. The scope of Section 271(l)(c) has al…

Balaji Telefilms Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3)(Cr)4, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7650/MUM/2016[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Snehal R. Shah- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh & Ms.Kavita
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…the course of the search and even if such income is included in the return of income filed subsequent to the date of search and penalty has to be necessarily levied. 3.3 Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Mak Data V/s CIT 358 ITR 593 to conclude that the burden was on assessee to refute the allegations by cogent and reliable evidences. Finally, the stand of learned AO in imposing the penalty was upheld, which has given rise to second appeal before us. 4.1 The learned Authorized representative for Assessee (AR), at the outset, drew our attention to the additional grounds of ap…

Balaji Telefilms Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3) Cen RG 4, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 5580/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Snehal R. Shah- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh & Ms.Kavita
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…the course of the search and even if such income is included in the return of income filed subsequent to the date of search and penalty has to be necessarily levied. 3.3 Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Mak Data V/s CIT 358 ITR 593 to conclude that the burden was on assessee to refute the allegations by cogent and reliable evidences. Finally, the stand of learned AO in imposing the penalty was upheld, which has given rise to second appeal before us. 4.1 The learned Authorized representative for Assessee (AR), at the outset, drew our attention to the additional grounds of ap…

Balaji Telefilms Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3)(Cr)4, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7645/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Snehal R. Shah- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh & Ms.Kavita
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…the course of the search and even if such income is included in the return of income filed subsequent to the date of search and penalty has to be necessarily levied. 3.3 Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Mak Data V/s CIT 358 ITR 593 to conclude that the burden was on assessee to refute the allegations by cogent and reliable evidences. Finally, the stand of learned AO in imposing the penalty was upheld, which has given rise to second appeal before us. 4.1 The learned Authorized representative for Assessee (AR), at the outset, drew our attention to the additional grounds of ap…

Shri Niral Krupesh Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(3), Baroda

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

ITA 563/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Aug 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273A

…DIT and the income was accepted during survey proceedings as discussed above. 9.11 Now coming to the case law referred by the AO i.e MAK Data, we find that the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MAK Data (P) Ltd vs. CIT reported in 358 ITR 593, in our humble opinion are factually different from the present facts of the case. In that case there were many documents found during the survey proceedings which were incriminating in nature. Thereafter a specific query was raised by the AO during assessment proceedings with respect to such ITA No.563/Ahd/2016 & 11 other appeals A.Y. 2009-10 14…

ITO Ward 3 (2), Thane vs. M/S Plus Suppliers, Thane

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 1261/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1261/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Beraram, DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Jain, AR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…e facts & in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty without appreciating the ratio laid down by 4 I.T.A. No. 1261/Mum/2019 M/s Plus Suppliers the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data (P) Ltd Vs CIT(358 ITR 593)(SC). 5. It is respectfully submitted that the penalty was levied for the additions made on the basis of information received from Law enforcement agency of the State Government of Maharashtra i.e. Sale Tax Department. 6. It is humbly requested that present appeal is being filed in accordance with the CBDT's Instruction No. 3/2018 dated 11/07/2…

Maris Cements Private Limited, Huliyar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Tumkur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 1672/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accoutant Member

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri PriyadarshiMisra, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…and to buy peace. Accordingly, the assessee prayed for cancellation of the penalty. The A.O. did not agree with the explanations given by the assessee. The AO took support of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. (358 ITR 593)(SC), wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the statute does not recognize defenses like ‘voluntary disclosure’, ‘buy peace’, ‘avoid litigation’, ‘amicable settlement’ etc. Thus, even voluntary surrender of income will not always necessarily rescue the assessee from the penalty provisions which are in the nature of remedy for loss of po…

ITO, Sard- 1 (2) Thane, Thane vs. Mak Rubber Products, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 5416/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5416/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito Ward-1(2) Thane बिधम/ Mak Rubber Products Room No.24, B-Wing, 6Th 301/306, B-Wing, Giriya Co. Vs. Floor, Ashar It Park, Road Op. Hsg. Society, Mahatma No. 16Z, Wagle Ind. Estate, Phule Road, Naupada, Thane (W)-400604. Thane-400601. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabfm8605N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Jothilakshmi Nayak (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Bhadresh K. Doshi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 05.07.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -03, Nasik [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009-10 In Which The Penalty Levied By Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh K. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Jothilakshmi Nayak (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271

…laim with necessary material evidence. Therefore, the assessee was constrained in order to avoid lengthy litigation to offer the additional income, which was accepted as such the Assessing Officer. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mak Data P. Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 593(SC) while considering the provisions of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act observed that the general principles of law in respect of penalty for concealment of income, does not grant the assessee automatic immunity from penalty on account of surrender or voluntary disclosure of income. As per the provisions of Explanation 1 to section…

ITO Ward 3 (2), Thane vs. Shri. Premkumar Shehgal, Thane

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1262/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer -3(2) V. Shri Premkumar Shehgal Gala No. 09, Gupta Deshpande Estate Room No. 4, B-Wing, 6Th Floor Pokhran Road No.1, Upavan Ashar I.T Park, 6Th Floor Thane – 400 604 Road No. 16Z Wagle Industrial Estate Pan:Accps1803K Thane – 400 604 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Sandhya Rathi Department By : Shri Bheraram

For Appellant: Ms. Sandhya RathiFor Respondent: Shri Bheraram
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…ng purchases from non-genuine parties. 4. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty without appreciating the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data (P) Ltd Vs CIT(358 ITR 593)(SC). 5. It is respectfully submitted that the penalty was levied for the additions made on the basis of information received from Law enforcement agency of the State Government of Maharashtra i.e. Sale Tax Department. 6. It is humbly requested that present appeal is being filed in accordance with the CBDT's Instruction No. 3/2018 dated 11/07/201…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Tianjin Tianshi India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2967/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2967/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S Tianjin Tianshi India Pvt. Ltd., War-25(3), 10, Community Centre, Basant New Delhi Lok, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabct5611J Assessee By : Sh. Upvan Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr 8 Date Of Hearing: 30.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.03.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Upvan Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 92(1)Section 92BSection 92C

…DR: 10. He strongly relied on the Explanation 7 to Section 271(1)(c) and on the judgments in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processors 295 ITR 244, Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. 327 ITR 510 and Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. 358 ITR 593. He filed written submissions detailing the provisions of the Act and ratio of the judgments. Arguments of the ld. AR: 11. It was argued that the order of the ITAT dated 27.05.2011 has been received in the office of the CIT on 25.07.2011 and hence the penalty order passed on 21.03.2012 is beyond the period of six months from the end of the mont…

DCIT Circle-3, Thane vs. M/S Shree Jain Traders, Thane

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 309/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Subodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vinod Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…not absolve the assessee from penalty. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty without appreciating the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data (P) Ltd. v. CIT (358 ITR 593) (SC). 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year (AY) 2010-11 on 27.09.2010 declaring total income of Rs.17,99,382/-. On receipt of information from the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills of Rs.3,35,814/- from…

Smt. Swarn Durgia, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1326/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Ramesh C.Sharma, Am & Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1326/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2015-16 Cuke Smt. Swarn Durgia The Ito Vs. 57, Vidyut Abhiyanta Colony Ward- 6(1) Malviya Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Ahfpd 9413 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.L.Poddar, Advocate Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri K.C. Gupta, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 17/02/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25 /02/2020 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri S.L.Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)

…arn Durgia vs ITO, Ward- 6(1), Jaipur come out with a revised computation of income and offered the correct income to tax. In support of his contentions, the ld. DR has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data (P) Ltd vs CIT, 358 ITR 593 (SC) and submitted that surrender of income by the assessee only after the issuance of notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act by the AO, would not be a voluntary disclosure and therefore, the assessee would not release from mischief of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act. Thus the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.…

Rheal Software P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 670/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rheal Software Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-8(3), Mumbai. 901, Premium Tower, Vs. Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabcr8008B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari, DR
Section 10BSection 139(5)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 274r

…y to the extent of difference between tax assessed and tax as returned/paid by the appellant i.e. Rs.1,63,04,652/- less Rs.91,82,026/-. 5.3 During the course of clarification, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (358 ITR 593) was referred by the Bench. In response to it, the Ld. counsel submits that the assessee in that case had filed return and in the course of scrutiny, the AO noticed that certain documents were impounded in the case of the sister concern of the assessee and the AO, by specific show cause notice, sought for specific information regarding documents…

Shri Chandresh Roshnalal Jain, Godhra vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1272/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1272/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Shri Chandresh Roshanlal Jain, A.C.I.T., B-1, Centre Point, Vs. Panchmahal Circle, Nr. S.T. Stand, Godhra. Godhra.

For Appellant: Ms Urvashi Shodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vidhyut Trivedi, Sr.D.R
Section 131Section 131(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ B’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1272/AHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Shri Chandresh Roshanlal Jain, A.C.I.T., B-1, Centre Point, Vs. Panchmahal Circle, Nr. S.T. Stand, Godhra. Godhra. PAN: ACGPJ4712J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms Urvashi Shodhan, A.R Revenue by : Shri Vidhyut Trivedi, Sr.D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 31/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 06/02/2020 आदेश/O R D E R PER WASEEM AHME…

Mahesh K. Faria, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 4(4) Cen RG 4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7669/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 7669/Mum/2016 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) Shri Mahesh K. Faria, The Dy. Commissioner Of Flat No.3, 3Rd Floor, Fairy Income Tax, Central Circle- बनाम/ Manor, 13-Gunbow Street, 4(4), Cr-4, Mumbai Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaapf0587F अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Hiral D. Sejpal, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Ms. Kavita P Kaushik, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 03.02.2020

For Appellant: Ms. Hiral D. Sejpal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P Kaushik, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ng of inaccurate particulars of income. When, these facts were pointed out to the learned Sr. Departmental Representative, she argued that the assessee’s case is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC), but she could not point out how this judgement will help the Revenue. She only contended that the AO is not required to record satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it in writing, this is the ratio of Mak Data (P.) Ltd. (supra). On the other hand, the assessee’s Counsel relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case…

Nishith M. Desai (Prop: Nishith Desai Associates), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1188/MUM/2018[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2020AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.Y : 2009-10 :

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. AndhyarujinaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra).” 9. When these facts were confronted to the learned Senior DR, she only stated that the issue has been deliberated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data (P.) Ltd. vs CIT, 358 ITR 593 (SC) and hence, the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court cannot be followed. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Admitted facts from the above reproduced notices is clear; the Assessing Officer is not sure about the charge, i.e. whether notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of th…

Coast Line Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4943/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravi SawanaFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…inding by the Assessing Officer himself, the benefit of doubt cannot be given to the revenue merely because the assessee did not complain of vagueness in the show-cause notice earlier. 16. Reliance placed by the revenue upon Mak Data Private Limited v/s. CIT [358 ITR 593 (SC)], is of no assistance as the Supreme Court merely observed therein that the Assessing Officer is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner while imposing the penalty or reduce it to writing. That is not the controversy in the case on hand. 17. On principle, when penalty proceedings are sought to be initiated by the reven…

Coast Line Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4942/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravi SawanaFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…inding by the Assessing Officer himself, the benefit of doubt cannot be given to the revenue merely because the assessee did not complain of vagueness in the show-cause notice earlier. 16. Reliance placed by the revenue upon Mak Data Private Limited v/s. CIT [358 ITR 593 (SC)], is of no assistance as the Supreme Court merely observed therein that the Assessing Officer is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner while imposing the penalty or reduce it to writing. That is not the controversy in the case on hand. 17. On principle, when penalty proceedings are sought to be initiated by the reven…

Coast Line Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4941/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravi SawanaFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…inding by the Assessing Officer himself, the benefit of doubt cannot be given to the revenue merely because the assessee did not complain of vagueness in the show-cause notice earlier. 16. Reliance placed by the revenue upon Mak Data Private Limited v/s. CIT [358 ITR 593 (SC)], is of no assistance as the Supreme Court merely observed therein that the Assessing Officer is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner while imposing the penalty or reduce it to writing. That is not the controversy in the case on hand. 17. On principle, when penalty proceedings are sought to be initiated by the reven…