Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT

434 ITR 1High Court2021#82 most cited

What is Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT authority for?

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify the exact charge by not striking off the irrelevant limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income). Such an omnibus or vague notice renders the penalty proceedings bad in law, and any penalty imposed on its basis is liable to be quashed.

672

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT · Section 271(1)(c) · Section 274 · defective penalty notice · non-striking off irrelevant limb · non-specification of charge · omnibus notice · vagueness · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · penalty quashed

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 153ASection 250Section 147Section 143(2)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 270a(8)section 271(l)record datesection 271(l)(c)section 274section 270a(9)furnishing inaccurate particularsfurnishing inaccurate particulars of incomeconcealment of incomenon-application of mindpenalty proceedings initiatedpenalty u/s 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT

Mr. Shivakumar Mahadevaiah, Mysore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Mysore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 518/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sukesh Patil, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…ccurate particulars of income. In that view of the matter, we support the contention made by the assessee’s counsel. We also take the essence of the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court Full Bench at Goa in the case of Md. Farhan A. Shaikh (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bombay), wherein notice was issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without striking all the irrelevant part found to be an omnibus notice suffers from the voice of vagueness and the entire proceeding was quashed. 4.1 The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT & Anr. v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) has laid down the following pri…

Ujala Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Nsp Pitampura Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 43(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1850/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ally mentioning the offence committed by the assessee, would become fatal to the penalty proceedings ? This issue is no longer res integra in view of the Full Bench Decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh vs DCIT reported in 434 ITR 1 (Bom)(FB) dated 11.3.2021. The relevant operative portion of the said judgement is reproduced hereunder:- “Question No. 3: What is the effect of the Supreme Court's decision in Dilip N. Shroff Case (supra) on the issue of non-application of mind when the irrelevant portions of the printed notices are not struck off ? 187 In Dilip N. Shroff case (s…

Ujala Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Netaji Subhash Place vs. ACIT Circle 40(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1849/DEL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ally mentioning the offence committed by the assessee, would become fatal to the penalty proceedings ? This issue is no longer res integra in view of the Full Bench Decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh vs DCIT reported in 434 ITR 1 (Bom)(FB) dated 11.3.2021. The relevant operative portion of the said judgement is reproduced hereunder:- “Question No. 3: What is the effect of the Supreme Court's decision in Dilip N. Shroff Case (supra) on the issue of non-application of mind when the irrelevant portions of the printed notices are not struck off ? 187 In Dilip N. Shroff case (s…

Lyka Labs Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 1417/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar Beig
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…f income. The learned AR in support of his submission placed reliance upon various decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court including the decision of the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v/s CIT, [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom.). 7. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR”) vehemently relied upon the order passed by the lower authorities and submitted that the issue of alleged defect in notice issued under section 274 Lyka Labs Ltd. ITAs no.1415, 1416 & 1417/Mum./2024 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the Act has recently been considered by…

Lyka Labs Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 1416/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar Beig
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…f income. The learned AR in support of his submission placed reliance upon various decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court including the decision of the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v/s CIT, [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom.). 7. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR”) vehemently relied upon the order passed by the lower authorities and submitted that the issue of alleged defect in notice issued under section 274 Lyka Labs Ltd. ITAs no.1415, 1416 & 1417/Mum./2024 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the Act has recently been considered by…

Lyka Labs Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 1415/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar Beig
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…f income. The learned AR in support of his submission placed reliance upon various decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court including the decision of the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v/s CIT, [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom.). 7. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR”) vehemently relied upon the order passed by the lower authorities and submitted that the issue of alleged defect in notice issued under section 274 Lyka Labs Ltd. ITAs no.1415, 1416 & 1417/Mum./2024 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the Act has recently been considered by…

Pradeep Dayanand Kothari, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 27/CHNY/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.26 & 27/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 V. Shri Pradeep Dayanand Kothari, The Dy. Commissioner – Kothari Buildings, 4Th Floor, Of Income Tax, 114, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Corporate Circle-4(2), Chennai-600 034. Chennai.

For Appellant: Ms. N.V.Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…uding the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of Babuji Jacob v. ITO reported in (2021) 430 ITR 259 (Mad). We also note that the Full bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. DCIT reported in [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) dated 11.03.2021 held that the show cause notice issued prior to levy of penalty without specifying ITA Nos.26 & 27/Chny/2024 (AYs 2006-07 & 2007-08) Pradeep Dayanand Kothari :: 4 :: the fault/charge against which the assessee is being proceeded, would vitiate the penalty itself. And thus the Hon’ble High Court upheld the view of the d…

Pradeep Dayanand Kothari, Chennai vs. DCIT, Tax Corporate Cricle 4(2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 26/CHNY/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.26 & 27/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 V. Shri Pradeep Dayanand Kothari, The Dy. Commissioner – Kothari Buildings, 4Th Floor, Of Income Tax, 114, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Corporate Circle-4(2), Chennai-600 034. Chennai.

For Appellant: Ms. N.V.Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…uding the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of Babuji Jacob v. ITO reported in (2021) 430 ITR 259 (Mad). We also note that the Full bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. DCIT reported in [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) dated 11.03.2021 held that the show cause notice issued prior to levy of penalty without specifying ITA Nos.26 & 27/Chny/2024 (AYs 2006-07 & 2007-08) Pradeep Dayanand Kothari :: 4 :: the fault/charge against which the assessee is being proceeded, would vitiate the penalty itself. And thus the Hon’ble High Court upheld the view of the d…

Sri Maharani Finance Corporaton, Thiruchengode vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Salem

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1264/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1264/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1261/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1262/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sri Maharani Finance Corporation Dcit बनाम/ 24A, Velur Road, Central Circle, Vs. Tiruchengode-637 211. Salem. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfs-0488-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Ca)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: 1. Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Certain Penalty In Captioned Assessment Years, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. First, We Take Up Ita No.1264/Chny/2023 For Ay 2016-17 Which Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Chennai

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (CA)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…his decision, co-ordinate bench relied on another decision of Tribunal in M/s PVP Ventures Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No.778/Chny/2019) which in turn, drew strength from the decision of larger bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shhaikh (125 Taxmann.com 253) as well as the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Babuji Jacob Vs. lTO (430 lTR 259; 08.12.2020) to take the same view. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Babuji Jacob Vs. lTO (supra), considering various decisions holding the field, held that since the notice under Section 271(1)(c) did not specifically state as to…

Sri Maharani Finance Corporation, Thiruchengode vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Salem

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1262/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1264/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1261/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1262/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sri Maharani Finance Corporation Dcit बनाम/ 24A, Velur Road, Central Circle, Vs. Tiruchengode-637 211. Salem. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfs-0488-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Ca)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: 1. Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Certain Penalty In Captioned Assessment Years, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. First, We Take Up Ita No.1264/Chny/2023 For Ay 2016-17 Which Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Chennai

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (CA)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…his decision, co-ordinate bench relied on another decision of Tribunal in M/s PVP Ventures Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No.778/Chny/2019) which in turn, drew strength from the decision of larger bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shhaikh (125 Taxmann.com 253) as well as the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Babuji Jacob Vs. lTO (430 lTR 259; 08.12.2020) to take the same view. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Babuji Jacob Vs. lTO (supra), considering various decisions holding the field, held that since the notice under Section 271(1)(c) did not specifically state as to…

Sri Maharani Finance Corporation, Thiruchengode vs. DCIT Central Circle, Salem

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1261/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1264/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1261/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1262/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sri Maharani Finance Corporation Dcit बनाम/ 24A, Velur Road, Central Circle, Vs. Tiruchengode-637 211. Salem. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfs-0488-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Ca)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: 1. Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Certain Penalty In Captioned Assessment Years, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. First, We Take Up Ita No.1264/Chny/2023 For Ay 2016-17 Which Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Chennai

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (CA)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…his decision, co-ordinate bench relied on another decision of Tribunal in M/s PVP Ventures Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No.778/Chny/2019) which in turn, drew strength from the decision of larger bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shhaikh (125 Taxmann.com 253) as well as the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Babuji Jacob Vs. lTO (430 lTR 259; 08.12.2020) to take the same view. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Babuji Jacob Vs. lTO (supra), considering various decisions holding the field, held that since the notice under Section 271(1)(c) did not specifically state as to…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-10, Chennai vs. Sj Suryah, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 594/CHNY/2024[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri S.J.Suryah, The Asst. Commissioner- No.35-1D, Of Income Tax, 114, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Central Circle-2(4), T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Alyps 3012 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…being proceeded against for levy of penalty. And this action of the Tribunal has been upheld by several judgments of the various High Courts. We note that the Full bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) dated 11.03.2021 held that the show cause notice issued prior to levy of penalty without specifying the fault/charge against which the assessee is being proceeded, would vitiate the penalty itself. And thus the Hon’ble High Court upheld the view of the division bench order in the case of PCIT Vs. Goa Dourado Promotions (P.) Ltd. (Tax Ap…

Shri.S.J.Suryah, Chennai, Tamil Nadu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 806/CHNY/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri S.J.Suryah, The Asst. Commissioner- No.35-1D, Of Income Tax, 114, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Central Circle-2(4), T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Alyps 3012 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…being proceeded against for levy of penalty. And this action of the Tribunal has been upheld by several judgments of the various High Courts. We note that the Full bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) dated 11.03.2021 held that the show cause notice issued prior to levy of penalty without specifying the fault/charge against which the assessee is being proceeded, would vitiate the penalty itself. And thus the Hon’ble High Court upheld the view of the division bench order in the case of PCIT Vs. Goa Dourado Promotions (P.) Ltd. (Tax Ap…

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

…is unsustainable in law and for that we relies on ratio of the judgments (infra) though in the context of penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act including that of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court: i) Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT reported in (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom) (FB) ii) CIT v. Sam-son Pondichery [2017] 392 ITR 4 (Bom) TXA No. 1154 of 2014 dated January 5, 2017; iii) CIT (Pr.) v. Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation P. Ltd. [2020] 16 ITR-OL 111 (Bom) Tax Appeal No.24 of 2019 dated November 11, 2019; iv) Pr. CIT v. New Era Sova Mine [2021] 433 ITR 249 (Bom) Tax Appeal Nos. 70 of 2019 dated June 18, 2019…

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

…is unsustainable in law and for that we relies on ratio of the judgments (infra) though in the context of penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act including that of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court: i) Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT reported in (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom) (FB) ii) CIT v. Sam-son Pondichery [2017] 392 ITR 4 (Bom) TXA No. 1154 of 2014 dated January 5, 2017; iii) CIT (Pr.) v. Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation P. Ltd. [2020] 16 ITR-OL 111 (Bom) Tax Appeal No.24 of 2019 dated November 11, 2019; iv) Pr. CIT v. New Era Sova Mine [2021] 433 ITR 249 (Bom) Tax Appeal Nos. 70 of 2019 dated June 18, 2019…

Ajit Singh vs. ITO Ward-1, Gurgoan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 112/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.112/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 बनाम Ajit Singh Ito, H-35, First Floor, Jangpura Extn., Vs. Ward-1, 5Th Floor, Hsiidc Bldg., New Delhi. Pan No.Ahkpss666H Udhyog Vihar, Phase-5, Near Shankar Chowk, Gurgaon, Haryana. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

…direct the Registry to place these two Tax Appeals before the Division Bench concerned for further adjudication." 6. As could be seen from the above the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Full Bench at Goa) in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT [(2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom)] while dealing with the issue of non strike off of the irrelevant part in the notice issued u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act, held that assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice and an omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness. 7. In the case of PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance C…

Gini and Jony Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 9(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4579/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year :2009-10 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Sujatha Iyangar, Sr.AR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…notice. In support of the contention that penalty levied on the basis of defective notice is not sustainable, the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee placed reliance on the Full Bench decision rendered in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT, 434 ITR 1(Bom). 3. On the contrary, Ld D.R vehemently defended the orders passed by Ld CIT(A) in both the years. 4. We have heard the rival submissions. The Ld A.R furnished copies of notices issued by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for both the years. A penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is levied on two charges, viz., (a) for concealment of particulars of…

Gini and Jony Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 9(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4575/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year :2009-10 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Sujatha Iyangar, Sr.AR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…notice. In support of the contention that penalty levied on the basis of defective notice is not sustainable, the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee placed reliance on the Full Bench decision rendered in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT, 434 ITR 1(Bom). 3. On the contrary, Ld D.R vehemently defended the orders passed by Ld CIT(A) in both the years. 4. We have heard the rival submissions. The Ld A.R furnished copies of notices issued by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for both the years. A penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is levied on two charges, viz., (a) for concealment of particulars of…

Dinesh Somatmal Dhokar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3556/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…such penalty notices are bad in law and therefore, the penalty orders passed by the lower authorities are not sustainable. She relied upon the full Bench decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Mohamad Farah Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (FB) (Bom) (HC). She referred to question no.1 at page no.56 and submitted that the issue is decided in favour of the assessee. ITA Nos. 3555& 3556/Mum/2023 Dinesh Somatmal Dhokar; A.Ys. 09-10 & 10-11 She also submitted that when the addition was made on the basis of 09. the estimation of income, the penalty cannot be levied under Section 271(1)(c)…

Dinesh Somatmal Dhokar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3555/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…such penalty notices are bad in law and therefore, the penalty orders passed by the lower authorities are not sustainable. She relied upon the full Bench decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Mohamad Farah Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (FB) (Bom) (HC). She referred to question no.1 at page no.56 and submitted that the issue is decided in favour of the assessee. ITA Nos. 3555& 3556/Mum/2023 Dinesh Somatmal Dhokar; A.Ys. 09-10 & 10-11 She also submitted that when the addition was made on the basis of 09. the estimation of income, the penalty cannot be levied under Section 271(1)(c)…