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

Hotel Saurab, Dehradun vs. DCIT Central Circle, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2438/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun16 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

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

…ace these two I.T.A. No. 2438/Del/2019 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(l)(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 Co.…

Manisha Jain, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 2(4), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3420/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

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

…direct the Registry to place these two Tax Appeals before the Division Bench concerned for further adjudication." 5. 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 Vs. 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(l)(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. 6. In the case of PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. L…

Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-2, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 9570/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. This would prove fatal to the entire penalty proceedings in view of the Full Bench decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom) (HC). The relevant operative portion of the said judgement is reproduced below:- 186. That said, regarding the other assessment year, it reasons that the assessment order, containing the reasons or justification, avoids prejudice to the assessee. That is where, we reckon, the reasoning suffers. Kaushalya's insistence that the previous procee…

Bal Bharti Nursery School, Allahabad vs. ITO(Exemption), Allahabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 64/ALLD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad06 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.62/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.63/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.64/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bal Bharti Nursery School बिधम/ Ito (Exemption 13, Kamla Nehru Road, Allahabad) Vs. Civil Lines, Allahabad, Central Revenue Uttar Pradesh-211001. Building, M. G. Marg, Income Tax Office, Allahabad-211001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb6395D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Ashish Bansal Revenue By: Shri Amlendu Nath Mishra (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.03.2023 For Ay. 2008-09, Ay. 2010-11 & Ay. 2011-12 Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. Since Both Parties Agree That The Penalty Levied By The Ao/Ld. Cit(A) Are Similar/Identical In All The Captioned Assessment Years, The Decision Of Any One Appeal Would Determine The Fate Of Others. Therefore, Appeal Of Ay. 2008-09 Is Taken As The Lead Case, (However, A.Y. 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Bal Bharti Nursery School The Contents/Details Of Impugned Notices For All The Captioned Years Will Be Discussed Separately Infra).

For Appellant: Shri Ashish BansalFor Respondent: Shri Amlendu Nath Mishra (Sr. DR)
Section 10Section 12ASection 271(1)(c)

…”. Therefore, according to him, since show-cause notice itself is vague, the penalty levied is vitiated. For such a preposition, he relied on the decision of 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 wherein their Lordships has held that if the show cause notice issued prior to levy of penalty is found to be without specifying the fault/charge against which the assessee was being proceeded against, that would vitiate the penalty itself. And thus the Hon’ble Court upheld the view of the division bench order in the case…

Bal Bharti Nursery School, Allahabad vs. ITO(Exemption), Allahabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 63/ALLD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad06 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.62/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.63/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.64/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bal Bharti Nursery School बिधम/ Ito (Exemption 13, Kamla Nehru Road, Allahabad) Vs. Civil Lines, Allahabad, Central Revenue Uttar Pradesh-211001. Building, M. G. Marg, Income Tax Office, Allahabad-211001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb6395D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Ashish Bansal Revenue By: Shri Amlendu Nath Mishra (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.03.2023 For Ay. 2008-09, Ay. 2010-11 & Ay. 2011-12 Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. Since Both Parties Agree That The Penalty Levied By The Ao/Ld. Cit(A) Are Similar/Identical In All The Captioned Assessment Years, The Decision Of Any One Appeal Would Determine The Fate Of Others. Therefore, Appeal Of Ay. 2008-09 Is Taken As The Lead Case, (However, A.Y. 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Bal Bharti Nursery School The Contents/Details Of Impugned Notices For All The Captioned Years Will Be Discussed Separately Infra).

For Appellant: Shri Ashish BansalFor Respondent: Shri Amlendu Nath Mishra (Sr. DR)
Section 10Section 12ASection 271(1)(c)

…”. Therefore, according to him, since show-cause notice itself is vague, the penalty levied is vitiated. For such a preposition, he relied on the decision of 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 wherein their Lordships has held that if the show cause notice issued prior to levy of penalty is found to be without specifying the fault/charge against which the assessee was being proceeded against, that would vitiate the penalty itself. And thus the Hon’ble Court upheld the view of the division bench order in the case…

Bal Bharti Nursery School, Allahabad vs. ITO (Exemption), Allahabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 62/ALLD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad06 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.62/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.63/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.64/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bal Bharti Nursery School बिधम/ Ito (Exemption 13, Kamla Nehru Road, Allahabad) Vs. Civil Lines, Allahabad, Central Revenue Uttar Pradesh-211001. Building, M. G. Marg, Income Tax Office, Allahabad-211001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb6395D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Ashish Bansal Revenue By: Shri Amlendu Nath Mishra (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.03.2023 For Ay. 2008-09, Ay. 2010-11 & Ay. 2011-12 Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. Since Both Parties Agree That The Penalty Levied By The Ao/Ld. Cit(A) Are Similar/Identical In All The Captioned Assessment Years, The Decision Of Any One Appeal Would Determine The Fate Of Others. Therefore, Appeal Of Ay. 2008-09 Is Taken As The Lead Case, (However, A.Y. 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Bal Bharti Nursery School The Contents/Details Of Impugned Notices For All The Captioned Years Will Be Discussed Separately Infra).

For Appellant: Shri Ashish BansalFor Respondent: Shri Amlendu Nath Mishra (Sr. DR)
Section 10Section 12ASection 271(1)(c)

…”. Therefore, according to him, since show-cause notice itself is vague, the penalty levied is vitiated. For such a preposition, he relied on the decision of 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 wherein their Lordships has held that if the show cause notice issued prior to levy of penalty is found to be without specifying the fault/charge against which the assessee was being proceeded against, that would vitiate the penalty itself. And thus the Hon’ble Court upheld the view of the division bench order in the case…

Preeti Jagdish Agrawal, Nagpur vs. Assistan Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-1(2), Nagpur

ITA 70/NAG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Dr. Kaumudi Patil, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…notice had nowhere specified as to whether this is an instance of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of taxable income. That being the case, we quote hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s landmark decision Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT [2021] 43 ITR 1 (Bom.) that an Assessing Officer’s failure to this effect indeed vitiates even the penalty proceedings. Faced with the situation, we reject the Revenue’s vehement contentions supporting the impugned penalty. This former assessee’s appeal ITA.No.67/Nag./2021 is accepted in very terms. 4. Next comes the latter assessment year 2015-16 involving both t…

Jagdish S.Agrawal, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Nagpur

ITA 68/NAG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Dr. Kaumudi Patil, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…notice had nowhere specified as to whether this is an instance of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of taxable income. That being the case, we quote hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s landmark decision Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT [2021] 43 ITR 1 (Bom.) that an Assessing Officer’s failure to this effect indeed vitiates even the penalty proceedings. Faced with the situation, we reject the Revenue’s vehement contentions supporting the impugned penalty. This former assessee’s appeal ITA.No.67/Nag./2021 is accepted in very terms. 4. Next comes the latter assessment year 2015-16 involving both t…

Jagdish S. Agrawal, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circal-1(2), Nagpur

ITA 67/NAG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Dr. Kaumudi Patil, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…notice had nowhere specified as to whether this is an instance of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of taxable income. That being the case, we quote hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s landmark decision Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT [2021] 43 ITR 1 (Bom.) that an Assessing Officer’s failure to this effect indeed vitiates even the penalty proceedings. Faced with the situation, we reject the Revenue’s vehement contentions supporting the impugned penalty. This former assessee’s appeal ITA.No.67/Nag./2021 is accepted in very terms. 4. Next comes the latter assessment year 2015-16 involving both t…

Braganza and Fulari Ventures Private Limited, Mapusa vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Panaji

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 28/PAN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.28/Pan/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Braganza & Fulari Ventures Vs. Acit, Private Limited, Circle-2(1), 303-304, 3Rd Floor, Panaji B&F Habitat Building, Canca Parra Bypass, Ximer Bardez, Mapusa, Goa – 403507 Pan : Aaecb3628E Appellant Respondent

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

…y is levied. It is this charge, as set out in the penalty notice, which the assessee has to meet with culminating into imposition or otherwise of the penalty. The Full bench of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh & Anr. vs. ACIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom)(FB) has held that if the charge in the notice u/s 274 is vague i.e. irrelevant charge has not been struck off, the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) gets vitiated. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in PCIT vs. Golden Peace Hotels and Resorts (P.) Ltd. (2021) 124 taxmann.com 248 (Bom). The SLP of Department against this ju…

Nitin Raj Marwah, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2252/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja PitaleFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35(1)(iii)

…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 Nitin Raj Marwah ITA no.2252/Mum./2023 Court, the penalty order passed under section…

Late Shri Amitabh A. Parekh (Through L/R. Julie A. Parekh), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the penalty appeals of the assesse captioned as ITA

ITA 3592/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2946/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2947/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2948/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2949/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / A Ssessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2945/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-20 Parekh Mumbai-400020. Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3590/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3591/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3592/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3589/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.597/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(2) Old Cgo Building, 8Th Parekh Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Floor, Mumbai-400020. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. A.Ys. 2003-04 To 07-08 Amitabh A. Parekh स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaipp6897N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sankalp Sharma Revenue By: Shri Sushil K Poddar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Sushil K Poddar (DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…30.12.2009 (for all captioned assessment years) were itself bad in law, the penalty levied are vitiated. For that, Ld. AR relied on the decisions of 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 in similar factual matrix (invalid notice) held that the show cause notice issued prior to levy of penalty without specifying the fault/charge against which the A.Ys. 2003-04 to 07-08 Amitabh A. Parekh assessee was being proceeded against would vitiate the penalty itself. And the Hon’ble Court uphel…

Late Shri Amitabh A. Parekh( Through L/R. Julie A. Parekh), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the penalty appeals of the assesse captioned as ITA

ITA 3591/MUM/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2946/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2947/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2948/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2949/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / A Ssessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2945/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-20 Parekh Mumbai-400020. Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3590/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3591/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3592/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3589/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.597/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(2) Old Cgo Building, 8Th Parekh Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Floor, Mumbai-400020. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. A.Ys. 2003-04 To 07-08 Amitabh A. Parekh स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaipp6897N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sankalp Sharma Revenue By: Shri Sushil K Poddar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Sushil K Poddar (DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…30.12.2009 (for all captioned assessment years) were itself bad in law, the penalty levied are vitiated. For that, Ld. AR relied on the decisions of 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 in similar factual matrix (invalid notice) held that the show cause notice issued prior to levy of penalty without specifying the fault/charge against which the A.Ys. 2003-04 to 07-08 Amitabh A. Parekh assessee was being proceeded against would vitiate the penalty itself. And the Hon’ble Court uphel…

Late Shri Amitabh A. Parekh( Through L/R. Julie A. Parekh), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the penalty appeals of the assesse captioned as ITA

ITA 3590/MUM/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2946/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2947/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2948/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2949/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / A Ssessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2945/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-20 Parekh Mumbai-400020. Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3590/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3591/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3592/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3589/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.597/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(2) Old Cgo Building, 8Th Parekh Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Floor, Mumbai-400020. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. A.Ys. 2003-04 To 07-08 Amitabh A. Parekh स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaipp6897N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sankalp Sharma Revenue By: Shri Sushil K Poddar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Sushil K Poddar (DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…30.12.2009 (for all captioned assessment years) were itself bad in law, the penalty levied are vitiated. For that, Ld. AR relied on the decisions of 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 in similar factual matrix (invalid notice) held that the show cause notice issued prior to levy of penalty without specifying the fault/charge against which the A.Ys. 2003-04 to 07-08 Amitabh A. Parekh assessee was being proceeded against would vitiate the penalty itself. And the Hon’ble Court uphel…

Late Shri Amitabh A. Parekh( Through L/R. Julie A. Parekh), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the penalty appeals of the assesse captioned as ITA

ITA 3589/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2946/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2947/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2948/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2949/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / A Ssessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2945/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-20 Parekh Mumbai-400020. Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3590/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3591/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3592/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3589/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.597/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Late Shri Amitabh A. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(2) Old Cgo Building, 8Th Parekh Vs. (Through Mrs. Julie A. Floor, Mumbai-400020. Parekh Legal Representative) 85, Navrang, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. A.Ys. 2003-04 To 07-08 Amitabh A. Parekh स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaipp6897N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sankalp Sharma Revenue By: Shri Sushil K Poddar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Sushil K Poddar (DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…30.12.2009 (for all captioned assessment years) were itself bad in law, the penalty levied are vitiated. For that, Ld. AR relied on the decisions of 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 in similar factual matrix (invalid notice) held that the show cause notice issued prior to levy of penalty without specifying the fault/charge against which the A.Ys. 2003-04 to 07-08 Amitabh A. Parekh assessee was being proceeded against would vitiate the penalty itself. And the Hon’ble Court uphel…

Jaikumar Bhagwantprasad Bajaj, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(4), Nagpur

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 356/NAG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ow cause notice issued under Section 274 of the Act dated 22.04.2014 had nowhere specified as to whether this is an instance of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. That being the case, we quote Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (FB) that such a failure at the Assessing Officer’s behest vitiates the entire proceedings. 4. We accordingly reject the Revenue’s vehement arguments supporting the impugned penalty in very terms. The assessee succeeds in its sole substantive grievance therefore. Ordered accordingly. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Or…

Bhaskara Enterprises, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1512/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy, DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Baisetty Revathi [2018] 99 taxmann.com 442 (Andhra Pradesh and Telangana) and the Full Bench judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court at Page 3 of 11 Goa in the case of Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom) (FB) such a defect in the notice vitiates the entire proceedings. 8. Insofar as the merits of the case are concerned, learned AR submitted that in response to the penalty notice, the assessee submitted to the learned Assessing Officer about the financial hardships suffered by the assessee, but the learned Assessing Officer did not consider t…

Smt.Sushma Tandon, Delhi vs. ITO, WD- 45(2), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 663/KOL/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)(ii)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 663/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Sushma Tandon Income Tax Officer, Ward- 45(2), B-56, II Floor Vs Kolkata Ashok Vihar, Phase-1 Delhi - 110052 [PAN: ACYPT6306N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 22/09/2023 आदेश/O R D E R PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE…

Shriprakash Pralhadrai Agrawal, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Nagpur

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 40/NAG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ITA.No.40/Nag./2020 (Shriprakash P. Agrawal vs. ITO dated 02.02.2016 had nowhere specified as to whether this is an instance of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. That being the case, we quote Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (FB) that such a failure at the Assessing Officer’s behest vitiates the entire proceedings. 4. We accordingly reject the Revenue’s vehement arguments supporting the impugned penalty in very terms. The assessee succeeds in its sole substantive grievance therefore. Ordered accordingly. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Or…

D.C.I.T. Amravati Circle, Amaravati vs. The Amravati Zilla Parishad Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd., Amaravati

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 239/NAG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapin Hirani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…hak Sahakari Bank Ltd. under Section 274 of the Act dated 03.03.2016 had nowhere specified as to whether this is an instance of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. That being the case, we quote Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (FB) that such a failure at the Assessing Officer’s behest vitiates the entire proceedings. 4. We accordingly reject the Revenue’s vehement arguments supporting the impugned penalty in very terms. Ordered accordingly. 5. This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.09.2023 [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOT…