Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT

Himanshu Chimanlal Engineer, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 19 (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3209/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3208/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Himanshu Chimanlal बिधम/ Assistant Commissioner Engineer Income Tax, 19 (2) Vs. 33 – Chamunda Niwas, B- Piramal Chambers, Wing, 3Rd Floor, Tagore Parel, Mumbai-400012. Road, Santa Cruz (West), Mumbai-400054. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaape0548H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anant N Pai Revenue By: Shri. P D Chougle (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi (Nfac) [Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 14.07.2023 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2007-08 & Ay 2009-10. 2. Both Sides Agree That These Appeals Are Penalty Appeals; & Facts As Well As The Penalty Levied Are Similar/Identical In Both Appeals. Therefore, Appeal For The Ay 2007-08 Is Taken As The Lead Case & The Result Of Which Will Be Followed Mutatis Mutandis For The Appeal For Ay 2009-10. A.Y. 2007-08, 2009-10 Himanshu Chimanlal Engineer, Mumbai 3. Coming To Appeal For Ay 2007-08, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Anant N Pai Pointed Out That The Ao Had Levied An Amount Of Rs.5,00,000/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) By Penalty Order Dated 31.03.2014 For Ay. 2007-08 (And Rs. 10,00,000/- For Ay 2009-10). Further According To Him, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Impugned Penalty Levied By The Ao. Before Us The Assessee Has Raised An Addition Ground Of Appeal Wherein Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Which Is Reproduced As Under:-

…e penalty levied by AO is vitiated and pleaded for deletion of penalty. And in support of his aforesaid submission, the Ld. AR has relied on the Full Bench decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) dated 11.03.2021 wherein it was 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.)…

Himanshu Chimanlal Engineer, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 19 (2) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3209/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3208/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Himanshu Chimanlal बिधम/ Assistant Commissioner Engineer Income Tax, 19 (2) Vs. 33 – Chamunda Niwas, B- Piramal Chambers, Wing, 3Rd Floor, Tagore Parel, Mumbai-400012. Road, Santa Cruz (West), Mumbai-400054. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaape0548H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anant N Pai Revenue By: Shri. P D Chougle (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi (Nfac) [Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 14.07.2023 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2007-08 & Ay 2009-10. 2. Both Sides Agree That These Appeals Are Penalty Appeals; & Facts As Well As The Penalty Levied Are Similar/Identical In Both Appeals. Therefore, Appeal For The Ay 2007-08 Is Taken As The Lead Case & The Result Of Which Will Be Followed Mutatis Mutandis For The Appeal For Ay 2009-10. A.Y. 2007-08, 2009-10 Himanshu Chimanlal Engineer, Mumbai 3. Coming To Appeal For Ay 2007-08, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Anant N Pai Pointed Out That The Ao Had Levied An Amount Of Rs.5,00,000/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) By Penalty Order Dated 31.03.2014 For Ay. 2007-08 (And Rs. 10,00,000/- For Ay 2009-10). Further According To Him, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Impugned Penalty Levied By The Ao. Before Us The Assessee Has Raised An Addition Ground Of Appeal Wherein Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Which Is Reproduced As Under:-

…e penalty levied by AO is vitiated and pleaded for deletion of penalty. And in support of his aforesaid submission, the Ld. AR has relied on the Full Bench decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) dated 11.03.2021 wherein it was 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.)…

Titan Laboratories Pvt Ltd, Ghatkopare (E) vs. ACIT-14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3268/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Titan Laboratories Pvt. बिधम/ Acit, Circle-14(3)(1) Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. A/01-Gf & A/101 Plot No. Road, Mumbai-400020. 120, Anand Bhavan Road, Spectrum Building, Rb Mehta Marg, Tilak Road, Ghatkopare (E), Mumbai- 400077. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacct0509Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Poojari Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chougule (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/01/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi Dated 30.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee As Discernable From Perusal Of Grounds Of Appeal Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Act (Hereinafter “The Act”) To The Tune Of Rs.14,88,214/-.

…itself is bad in law, and consequently the penalty levied is vitiated. In this context, we find that same issue has come up for consideration before the Full bench of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) dated 11.03.2021 wherein their Lordships has held that the show cause notice issued prior to levy of penalty without specifying the fault/charge against which the assessee would vitiate the penalty itself. And thus the Hon’ble Full Bench of the High Court upheld the view of the division bench order in the case of PCIT Vs. Goa Dourado Promo…

Schott Glass India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA 7356/Mum/2014 of the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhschott Glass India Private Vs. Income Tax Officer 8(3)-1 Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Room No. 201, Aayakar 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai – 400020 Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Schott Glass India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Income Tax 8(3) 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 204, Aayakar Andheri Kurla Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ketan Ved Respondent By : Mahesh Jiwade Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Agasint The Different Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-15, Mumbai. Since Both These Appeals

….2594/Mum/2012 Schott Glass India Private Limited Vs. ITO-8(3)-1 “i. PCIT Vs. Golden Peace Hotels and Resorts (P) Ltd. (2021) 124 taxmann.com 249 (SC). ii. PCIT Vs. Jehangir H.C. Jehangir (2023) 155 taxmann.com 209. iii. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom) iv. Ganga Iron & Steel Trading Co. Vs. CIT (2022) 447 ITR 743 (Bom) The ld. Counsel also contended that Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 has held that if there is a defect in the notice for not striking off irrelevant matter the penalty cannot be levied. On the other hand, the…

Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. Circle 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, ITA 7356/Mum/2014 of the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhschott Glass India Private Vs. Income Tax Officer 8(3)-1 Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Room No. 201, Aayakar 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai – 400020 Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Schott Glass India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Income Tax 8(3) 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 204, Aayakar Andheri Kurla Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ketan Ved Respondent By : Mahesh Jiwade Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Agasint The Different Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-15, Mumbai. Since Both These Appeals

….2594/Mum/2012 Schott Glass India Private Limited Vs. ITO-8(3)-1 “i. PCIT Vs. Golden Peace Hotels and Resorts (P) Ltd. (2021) 124 taxmann.com 249 (SC). ii. PCIT Vs. Jehangir H.C. Jehangir (2023) 155 taxmann.com 209. iii. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom) iv. Ganga Iron & Steel Trading Co. Vs. CIT (2022) 447 ITR 743 (Bom) The ld. Counsel also contended that Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 has held that if there is a defect in the notice for not striking off irrelevant matter the penalty cannot be levied. On the other hand, the…

Royal Marwar Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 & 3 raised by the Appellant are dismissed as being infructuous

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

…) of the Act was issued without deleting or striking off inapplicable part. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant placed reliance the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Belgaum: 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) in support of his contentions. The Ld. Authorised Representative further submitted that, even otherwise, penalty could not have been levied in the present case as the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Act did not highlight the issue of capital gains income and the revised return filed by the Appellant was accepted. Per contra, th…

Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Healthcare Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-8(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.1373/Mum/2015 (A.Ys. 2006-07 & 2008-09) Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Dcit, Circle 10(3)(2) & Healthcare Limited Aaykar Bhavan, P & G Plaza Cardinal Mumbai Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400099 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

…e Act was invalid as the assessing officer has not specified the limb under which penalty was initiated. In this regard, the ld. Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom). He also referred various decision of ITAT, Mumbai wherein on identical facts and issue after following the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court the penalty levied was deleted. On the other hand, the ld. D.R supported the order of lower authorities. P a g e | 4 2 appeals Proctor & Gamble Hygiene & Healthcare Lted Vs. DCIT,…

Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.1373/Mum/2015 (A.Ys. 2006-07 & 2008-09) Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Dcit, Circle 10(3)(2) & Healthcare Limited Aaykar Bhavan, P & G Plaza Cardinal Mumbai Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400099 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

…e Act was invalid as the assessing officer has not specified the limb under which penalty was initiated. In this regard, the ld. Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom). He also referred various decision of ITAT, Mumbai wherein on identical facts and issue after following the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court the penalty levied was deleted. On the other hand, the ld. D.R supported the order of lower authorities. P a g e | 4 2 appeals Proctor & Gamble Hygiene & Healthcare Lted Vs. DCIT,…

Global Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Previous-ITO-20(1)(5), Present-Ward 20(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 & 3 raised by the Appellant are dismissed as being infructuous

…ed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. : 322 ITR 158 (SC) and the judgment of Full Bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Belgaum : 434 ITR 1 (Bombay). Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the 6. deduction claimed by the Appellant under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act was patently wrong and therefore, the Assessing Officer was correct in levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. Departmental Representative further submitted that the reliance up…

Vijay Moru Mhatre, Panvel vs. Income Tax Department, Thane

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhvijay Moru Mhatre, Vs. Acit, Cc-1 Plot No. 08, 1St Floor 6Th Floor Room No. 10, Mcch Society, Panvel Road No. 16-Z, Ashar It Maharashtra – 410206 Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W) स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aehpm8104Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Khushiram Jadhawani Respondent By : Usha Gaikwad Date Of Hearing 13.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023

…articulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 3.1. We find that this issue is no longer res-integra in view of the Full Bench decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh vs. DCIT reported in 434 ITR 1 (Bom). The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced hereunder:- 181. It does. The primary burden lies on the Revenue. In the assessment proceedings, it forms an opinion, prima facie or otherwise, to launch penalty proceedings against the assessee. But that translates into action only through the statutory notice under section 271(1)(c), rea…

M/S S. Sagar Enterprises, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

Accordingly, Ground No. 3 raised by the Appellant is allowed

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s S Sagar Enterprise, BE-5010, Bharat Diamond Bourse, BKC, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 [PAN: AAGFS8866G] …………… Appellant Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Central Circle 1(1), Mumbai, Central Building, Mumbai ……………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Rahul Sarda For the Respondent/Department : Dr. Kishor Dhule Date : 13.12.2023 Conclusion of hearing : 18.12.2023 Pronouncement of order O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. By way of the p…

Innovators Facade Systems Limited, Mira Road vs. ACIT, Circle -2, Thane

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…y of the twin charges i.e., concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v/s CIT, [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom.), wherein the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Court has held that the defect in notice by not striking off the irrelevant matter would vitiate the penalty proceedings. Accordingly, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is quashed. 8. In…