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

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

The appeals are allowed

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

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

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh R ShahFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair
Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…f the Act. It is submitted that thus the show cause notice being vague, subsequent action of levying the penalty stands vitiated. Reliance is placed on the Full Bench decision of the jurisdictional Bombay High Court in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs DCIT, Belgaum, 434 ITR 1 (Bom) in order to submit that a penal provision of the nature of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, though has civil consequences, must be construed strictly. It is pointed out that the ambiguity or the vagueness in the notice should be resolved in favour of the assessee. 8. It is next submitted that while making substantive addition on account of alle…

The United Theological College, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, (Exemptions), Ward-2, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 518/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Vargese, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Karthik, D.R
Section 11(5)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ITA No.518/Bang/2023 The United Theological College, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 The United Theological College No.63, Miller’s Road ITO (Exemptions) Benson Town Ward-2 Vs. Bangalore 560 046 Bangalore PAN NO : AABFT6448G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Joseph Vargese, A.R. Respondent by : Shri D.S. Karthik, D.R. Date of Hearing : 30.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 01.12.2023 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assesse…

Scholars International Educational Foundation, Rishikesh vs. DCIT (E), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2003/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deysh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…levant portion in the penalty show cause notice shall vitiate the entire penalty proceedings itself. 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 wherein it was held as under: “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 (supra), for the Supreme Court, it is of "some significance that in the standa…

Dhara Vijay Khara, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2237/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2015-2016
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Rajendra Chandekar
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…impugned, recorded that the notice was issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 of the Act without taking any of the two limbs. The full Bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case 5. Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Belgaum: 434 ITR 1 (Bombay), has held that a mere defect in the notice - not striking off the irrelevant part/limb, would vitiate the penalty proceedings. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: “Answers: Question No. 1: If the assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or the other, or both grounds mentioned in S…

Raj Kumar Karanwal, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO Ward3(2)(2), Muzaffarnagar

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

ITA 857/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

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

…his particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. We find that 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 [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom), wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court had held that non striking of the irrelevant matter in the show cause notice issued for initiating penalty would vitiate the entire penalty proceedings. The relevant operative portion of the said order is reproduced herein below:- “186. That said, regarding the other assessment year, it reasons that th…

Raj Kumar Karanwal, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO Ward 3(2)(2), Muzaffarnagar

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

ITA 856/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

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

…his particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. We find that 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 [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom), wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court had held that non striking of the irrelevant matter in the show cause notice issued for initiating penalty would vitiate the entire penalty proceedings. The relevant operative portion of the said order is reproduced herein below:- “186. That said, regarding the other assessment year, it reasons that th…

Rajiv Mehra, Amritsar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 172/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 172/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Rajiv Mehra, Vs. ACIT/DCIT, 2812, Sirki Bandan Central Circle, A Bazar, Amritsar 143001 Amritsar [PAN: ACCPM 9210C] (Appellant (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CA Respondent by : Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 22.11.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissione…

Vision Jewellers, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 530/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR JhlanhixkslkbZ]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 530/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2010-11 cuke M/s. Vision Jewellers The DCIT C/o R.K. Dhandia, 22, Moti Doongri Road, Vs. Circle-1 MootiDoongri Circle, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACFV 4559 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Rohan Sogani, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Reven…

Torane Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Palghar vs. ITO, Ward 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.1 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 2385/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year: 2010-11 Torane Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd. V. Ito, Ward 15(3)(1), Survey No.5/2,5/3, 6 & 7, Mumbai Village Torane Taluka Wada, Palghar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aacct9196K Assessee By: Shri Kumar Kale Revenue By: Shri P.D. Chougule, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 2.11.2023 Date Of : 3.11.2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Kumar KaleFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…o sure about the charge on which he intends to impose penalty on the assessee, such a notice clearly shows non-application of mind and such notice is not valid. Such is the mandate of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A Shaik vs. ACIT, 434 ITR 1 and Ganga Iron and Steel Trading Co. Vs. CIT, 135 taxmann.com 244 and PCIT vs. Jahangir in IT Appeal No.805 of 2018 dated 6/9/2013. In view of the above judicial binding precedents, we quash the penalty order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer and reverse the order of the Learned CIT-A confirming the penalty partly. In the result, ground No.1…

Ramchandra Ram Reddy, Nashik vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Pune

Appeal is allowed

ITA 721/PUN/2023[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Nov 2023AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshaliassessment Year 1998-1999 Shri Ramchandra Ram The Dcit, Reddy, Flat No.16, Central Circle-2(1), Gurukrupa Heights, Vadjai Vs Aayakar Bhavan, Room Mata Nagar, No.630, 6Th Floor, Bodhi Makhamalabad Road, Tower, 548/2B, Salisbury Panchvati, Nashik-422003 Park, Gultekdi, Pune. State Of Maharashtra. State Of Maharashtra Pan Abcpr6636E Pin 411 037. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 271(1)(c)

…had concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such an income, as the case may be. 4. Faced with the situation, we quote hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s recent Full Bench landmark decision in Mohd. Farhan A.Shaikh Vs. ACIT 434 ITR 1 (Bom) has settled the law that the above stated failure on the Assessing Officer’s part indeed vitiates the entire penal proceedings itself. We thus delete the impugned penalty for this precise reason alone. Ordered accordingly. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 01.11.2023. (GD PADMAHSHALI) JUDICIAL MEMBE…

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

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

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

Section 271(1)(c)

…pin-pointedly invoking either of the limbs of Section 271(1)(c) namely, "has concealed the particulars of his income" or "furnished inaccurate particulars of such income" in the show cause notice dated 23/01/2006 as per ratio laid down in MOHD SHAIKH v. DCIT 434 ITR 1 (BOM) (FB) and other case laws. ii) On the facts and in law, learned AO further erred in this connection in saddling Appellant with penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on grounds different than that mentioned in aforesaid show cause notice and assessment order dated 23/01/2006. III) Appellant craves leave to add to and/or amend and/or modify and/or alt…

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

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

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

Section 271(1)(c)

…pin-pointedly invoking either of the limbs of Section 271(1)(c) namely, "has concealed the particulars of his income" or "furnished inaccurate particulars of such income" in the show cause notice dated 23/01/2006 as per ratio laid down in MOHD SHAIKH v. DCIT 434 ITR 1 (BOM) (FB) and other case laws. ii) On the facts and in law, learned AO further erred in this connection in saddling Appellant with penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on grounds different than that mentioned in aforesaid show cause notice and assessment order dated 23/01/2006. III) Appellant craves leave to add to and/or amend and/or modify and/or alt…

Arun Ramkrishna Patil, Mumbai vs. Dy Comm.of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Thane

ITA 2204/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle – 1, Arun R Patil Thane Waddle Building First Ashar It Park Sixth Floor, Floor Raw Number 16 Z Vs. Near Dns Bank Manpower Wagle Industrial Estate Road Dombivali East Thane Maharashtra 400604 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadpm4988Q

For Appellant: Shri N A Kulkarni ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha SR DR
Section 143Section 271Section 274Section 68

…cancelled/strike of. In view of this, the penalty is not sustainable. This is also the mandate of the honourable jurisdictional High Court in case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. Dy. CIT [2021] 125 A.Y. 2012-13 Ms. Bela Nipun Mehta taxmann.com 253/280 Taxman 334/434 ITR 1 (Bom.). Accordingly, we direct the learned assessing officer to delete the penalty levied and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee. 09. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.10.2023. (ABY T VARKEY) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Mumbai, Dated:30.10.2023 Dragon Copy of…

Dy.DIT., (It)-3(1), Mumbai vs. Global Cricket Corporation Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 4990/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Dy. Cit(It) – 3(1) M/S. Global Cricket Corpn Pte Ltd. Scindia House, R. No. 132, 1St Floor, C/O. S. R. Batliboi & Co. Vs. 18Th Floor, Express Towers, N. M. Road, Mumbai- 38 Nariman Point, Mumbai-21 Pan/Gir No. Aabcg 7951 L (Revenue) : (Assessee) & Cross Objection No. 83/Mum/2012 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4990/Mum/2011) (Assessment Year: 2003-04) M/S. Global Cricket Corpn Pte Ltd. The Dy. Dit (It)-3(1) C/O. S R B C & Associates Mumbai- 400 038 14Th Floor, The Ruby, Vs. 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 Pan/Gir No. Aabcg 7951 L (Assessee) : (Revenue) : Shri P J Pardiwala/Aarati Sathe Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma : 16.10.2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2023

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM & Dy. CIT(IT) – 3(1) M/s. Global Cricket Corpn Pte Ltd. Scindia House, R. No. 132, 1st Floor, C/o. S. R. Batliboi & Co. Vs. 18th Floor, Express Towers, N. M. Road, Mumbai- 38 Nariman Point, Mumbai-21 PAN/GIR No. AABCG 7951 L (Revenue) : (Assessee) & Cross Objection No. 83/Mum/2012 (Arising out of ITA No.4990/Mum/2011) (Assessment Year: 2003-04) M/s. Global Cricket Corpn Pte Ltd. The Dy. DIT (IT)-3(1) C/o. S R B C & Associates Mumbai- 400 038 14th Floor, The Ruby, Vs. 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar…

The ADIT (It)-3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Global Cricket Corpn Pte. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 171/MUM/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Dy. Cit(It) – 3(1) M/S. Global Cricket Corpn Pte Ltd. Scindia House, R. No. 132, 1St Floor, C/O. S. R. Batliboi & Co. Vs. 18Th Floor, Express Towers, N. M. Road, Mumbai- 38 Nariman Point, Mumbai-21 Pan/Gir No. Aabcg 7951 L (Revenue) : (Assessee) & Cross Objection No. 83/Mum/2012 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4990/Mum/2011) (Assessment Year: 2003-04) M/S. Global Cricket Corpn Pte Ltd. The Dy. Dit (It)-3(1) C/O. S R B C & Associates Mumbai- 400 038 14Th Floor, The Ruby, Vs. 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 Pan/Gir No. Aabcg 7951 L (Assessee) : (Revenue) : Shri P J Pardiwala/Aarati Sathe Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma : 16.10.2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2023

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM & Dy. CIT(IT) – 3(1) M/s. Global Cricket Corpn Pte Ltd. Scindia House, R. No. 132, 1st Floor, C/o. S. R. Batliboi & Co. Vs. 18th Floor, Express Towers, N. M. Road, Mumbai- 38 Nariman Point, Mumbai-21 PAN/GIR No. AABCG 7951 L (Revenue) : (Assessee) & Cross Objection No. 83/Mum/2012 (Arising out of ITA No.4990/Mum/2011) (Assessment Year: 2003-04) M/s. Global Cricket Corpn Pte Ltd. The Dy. DIT (IT)-3(1) C/o. S R B C & Associates Mumbai- 400 038 14th Floor, The Ruby, Vs. 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar…

Ajit Narayan Patil. Kolhapur, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kolhapur

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 640/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.640/PUN./2023 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Shri Ajit Narayan Patil, The ACIT, Central Circle, Plot No.29A, Sham Society, C.S.No.622/623, 1st Floor, Near Crusher, Karveer, Office Unit F-1/A&B, vs. Kolhapur – 416 012. Shriram Heights, Maharashtra. Kolhapur – 416 003. PAN ABQPP6656A Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Kishor B Phadke For Revenue : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of Hearing : 01.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 25.10.2023 ORDE…

Mrs Rajani S.Iyer, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal

ITA 2240/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita No. 2239 & 2240/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mrs. Rajani S Iyer, Acit-20(3), 14/222, Bhaskar Bhavan, Mumbai-400001 Vs. Sri Balachandra Road, Matunga, Mumbai-400019. Pan No. Aaopi 9178 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Haridas Bhat Revenue By : Mrs. Mahita Nair, Dr : Date Of Hearing 11/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/10/2023

For Appellant: Mr. Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Mrs. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 2239 & 2240/MUM/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mrs. Rajani S Iyer, ACIT-20(3), 14/222, Bhaskar Bhavan, Mumbai-400001 Vs. Sri Balachandra Road, Matunga, Mumbai-400019. PAN No. AAOPI 9178 D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Haridas Bhat Revenue by : Mrs. Mahita Nair, DR : Date of Hearing 11/10/2023 Date of pronouncement : 25/10/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders, both dated…

Mrs Rajani S. Iyer, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-20(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal

ITA 2239/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita No. 2239 & 2240/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mrs. Rajani S Iyer, Acit-20(3), 14/222, Bhaskar Bhavan, Mumbai-400001 Vs. Sri Balachandra Road, Matunga, Mumbai-400019. Pan No. Aaopi 9178 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Haridas Bhat Revenue By : Mrs. Mahita Nair, Dr : Date Of Hearing 11/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/10/2023

For Appellant: Mr. Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Mrs. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 2239 & 2240/MUM/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mrs. Rajani S Iyer, ACIT-20(3), 14/222, Bhaskar Bhavan, Mumbai-400001 Vs. Sri Balachandra Road, Matunga, Mumbai-400019. PAN No. AAOPI 9178 D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Haridas Bhat Revenue by : Mrs. Mahita Nair, DR : Date of Hearing 11/10/2023 Date of pronouncement : 25/10/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders, both dated…

Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

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

ITA 2513/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…accurate particulars of income……..” 10. Even while levying the penalty, the Assessing Officer is not certain under which limb the penalty is to be levied. 11. This has not been accepted by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh 434 ITR 1, Goa Dourado Promotions Pvt Ltd 433 ITR 268 and the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd 432 ITR 84 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under: ““21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which was accepted by t…

Suresh Kumar, Sikar vs. ITO Ward - 40(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1965/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Us & Hence

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

…lly 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 (…