How many judgments cite Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT?

672 judgments on BharatTax cite Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT (434 ITR 1), spanning 2020 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 274, Section 143(3), Section 270A, Section 153A, Section 250.

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 274 Section 143(3)Section 270A Section 153A Section 250 Section 147 Section 143(2)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 270a(8)section 271(l)record date section 271(l)(c)section 274 section 270a(9)furnishing inaccurate particulars furnishing inaccurate particulars of income concealment of income non-application of mind penalty proceedings initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

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

Shri Kirtikumr Bhangdiya, Nagpur vs. Assistant Cmmisisonr of Income Tax Central Circle -2(1), Nagpur

ITA 115/NAG/2018[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2023AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal, DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…as to whether these three assessees had concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of their taxable income. The Revenue could 3 ITA.Nos. 112 to 115/Nag./2018 Shri Mitesh Bhangdiya & Ors. hardly dispute that case law Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (FB) holds that an assessing officer’s failure to this effect vitiates the relevant proceedings itself. 4. Faced with this situation, we are of the opinion that all these four penalties in question deserve to be deleted as non est in the eyes of law. Ordered accordingly. 5. These three assessees’ four appeals i.e. ITA No. 112/Nag./2018 (Sh…

Shri Kirtikumar Mitesh Bhangadia, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(1), Nagpur

ITA 114/NAG/2018[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal, DR

Section 271(1)(c)

Shri Sanjay Rameshchandraji Heda, Amaravati vs. Assistnt Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -2(1), Nagpur

ITA 113/NAG/2018[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal, DR

Section 271(1)(c)

Shri Mitesh G. Bhangdiya, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commisisoner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

ITA 112/NAG/2018[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal, DR

Section 271(1)(c)

ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Zensar Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed while the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3492/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3Section 94(7)

…ITA No. 3492/M/2010 & Cross Objection 31/M/2011 (Assessment Year: 2002-03) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "J" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(3), Mumbai Room No. 555, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400020 …………… Appellant Vs Zensar Technologies Ltd Magnet House, 2nd Floor, Narottam Morarjee Marg, ……………. Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400001 Respondent [PAN: AAACF0742K] CO. No 31/Mum/2011 Arising out of ITA No. 3492/MUM/2010 (Assessment Year: 2002-03) Zensar Technologies Ltd Magnet House, 2nd Floor, Narottam Mora…

Hasmukhbhai Dahyabhai Patel, Vapi vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 115/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr- DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.115/SRT/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Hasmukbhai Dahyabhai Patel Dy. Commissioner of Income- Kevdi Fadiya, Vapi Chala- tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi, Income Vs. Vapi, 8th Floor, 396191 Tax Office, Fortune Square-II, Above TBZ, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABTPP 6530 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Advocate राज" की ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr- DR सुनवा…

Jaypee Cement Corporation Limited, Noida vs. ACIT Circle 5(1)(1), Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and stay application of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1070/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Jaypee Cement Vs. Acit, Corporation Ltd, Circle-5(1)(1), Sector-128, Gautam Noida Budh Nagar, Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacz2168D

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 32A

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice President and SHRI M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member M/s. Jaypee Cement Vs. ACIT, Corporation Ltd, Circle-5(1)(1), Sector-128, Gautam Noida Budh Nagar, Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAACZ2168D SA No. 192/Del/2023 (In ITA No. 1070/Del/2023) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/s. Jaypee Cement Vs. ACIT, Corporation Ltd, Circle-5(1)(1), Sector-128, Gautam Budh Noida Nagar, Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAACZ2168D Assessee by : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri V. K. Garg, Adv Shri Ashish Gupta Revenue by: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT…

Shri Ajaya Kumar Chadda, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 (1), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 146/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. Navdeep Monga, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Mohit Kumar Nigam, Sr. DR

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

…e decision of the Hon’ble High Court in case of (i) PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. as reported in 432 ITR 84 (Del.); (ii) CIT & Anr. v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Karn); ( H i ) Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. Dy. CIT [2021] 434 ITR 1 [Bom ( F B ] for the proposition that notice issued under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law where it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(l)(c) of the Act, penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It was thus…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-1 vs. M/s. Radical Bio Organics Limited

ITTA/323/2022HC Telangana17 Aug 2023

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

For Appellant: SRI J.V. PRASAD, SC FOR lT DEPARTMENTFor Respondent: SRI S.V. RAMA KRISHNA

Section 260Section 271(1)(c)

…t, l [ 3386 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY NqOME TA)( TRIBUNAL APPEAL No: 323 ot2O22 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260-4 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 arising out of the order of the lncome{ax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ,B , Hyderabad, in ITA No.1633/Hyd/18, for assessment Y eat 2013-14 dated O1-O7 -2021 preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-3, Hyderabad, Appeal No.0533…

Rajesh Kalra, Hanumangarh Town vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Bikaner

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

ITA 37/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoterajesh Kalra, Vs. Dcit, Circle – 1, Prop. M/S. Zodiac Bikaner – 334001, Imaging & Diagnostic Rajasthan. Centre, Hanumangarh -335513, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Akapk9599E Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Prerana Choudhary, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/ Cit(A) & Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Prerana Choudhary

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…h Kalra, Hanumangarh. furnishing of in accurate particulars of income and the impugned notice was filed. We find the Honble High Court of Bombay in Mohd Farhan A Shaikh Vs. DCIT in Tax Appeal No. 51 to 57 of 2012 dated 11.03.2021 (2021) 125 .taxmann. com 253 /434 ITR 1 (Bombay) has dealt on this disputed issue of not striking off charge in the penalty notice would vitiate the penalty proceedings. The Hon’ble High Court has made observations at page 56 as under; 180. One course of before us is curing a defect in the notice by referring to the assessment order, which may or not contain reason for the penalty proce…

M/S. the Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Bhilwara vs. ACIT, Circle, Bhilwara

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

ITA 93/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S.The Central Vs. The Acit, Circle Cooperative Bank Ltd., Bhilwara. Mahendra Gargieya & Rajasthan. Associates, Adv , No537-538,5Thfloor, Mahimatrinity, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur – 302019, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aaaat8126B Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit -Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: M/S. The Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.,Bhilwara. 1.The Impugned Penalty Order U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 18.05.2017 Is Bad In Law & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same Kindly Be Quashed.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT -DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ulars of income and further at page 21 of the paper book, the impugned notice was placed. We find the Jurisdictional Honble High Court of Bombay in Mohd Farhan A Shaikh Vs. DCIT in Tax Appeal No. 51 to 57 of 2012 dated 11.03.2021 (2021) 125 .taxmann. com 253 /434 ITR 1 (Bombay) has dealt on this disputed issue of not striking off charge in the penalty notice would vitiate M/s. The Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.,Bhilwara. the penalty proceedings. The Hon’ble High Court has made observations at page 56 as under; 180. One course of before us is curing a defect in the notice by referring to the assessment order, whic…

Vatika Hotels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1763/DEL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 1763/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09 Vatika Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, बनाम 621A, Devika Towers, Central Circle : 8, Vs. 6 – Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 019. Pan No. Aabci2522B अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…e direct the Registry to place these two Tax Appeals before the Division Bench concerned for further adjudication." 7. 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. 8. In the case of PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co.…

V. M. Salgaocar Sales International., Vasco vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Margao Range, Margao

ITA 284/PAN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji10 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Badrinath Yamaji Chavan

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…had concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such an income, as the case may be. 3. 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) that the above stated failure on the Assessing Officer’s part indeed vitiates the entire penal proceedings itself. We thus confirm the CIT(A)’s order in deleting the impugned penalty for this precise reason alone. Ordered accordingly. 4. This Revenue’s appeal ITA.No.272/PAN./2019 is dismissed in above terms. 3 ITA.Nos.272 & 284/PAN./2019 5.…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range, Panaji vs. M/S V. M. Salgaocar & Brothers (P) Ltd., Vasco

ITA 272/PAN/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji10 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Badrinath Yamaji Chavan

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

Srinath Basu, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-56(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 306/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 306/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Srinath Basu Income Tax Officer, Ward-56(4), Vs Kolkata 26/2, Nayan Chand Dutta Street Kolkata - 700006 [Pan: Aeepb7086F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sujoy Sen, A/R & Shri Tapas Kr. Majumdar, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26/07/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/08/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 31/01/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Ld. Counsel At The Outset Submits That Penalty Order Is Bad In Law As The Penalty Proceedings Were Initiated & Penalty Of Rs.1,38,748/- Was Levied Without Specifying The Exact Limb Of Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Referring To The Penalty Notice Issued U/S 274 Read With Section 271(1)(C) Of The It Act, Dated 19Th March, 2014 (Placed On Record), Submitted That The Notice Was Issued Mechanically Stating That Assessee Has Concealed Particulars Of Income Or Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Such Income. In Other Words, The Notice Was Issued For Both The Limbs Without Strike Off Irrelevant Limb & Specifying The Charge For Which

For Appellant: Shri Sujoy Sen, A/R & Shri Tapas Kr. Majumdar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. CIT, D/R

Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…reference as required by us; so we direct the Registry to place these two Tax Appeals before the Division Bench concerned for further adjudication." 5. 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. 6. The ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Cou…

DCIT, CC-3, Thane vs. M/S. Sai Sugam Enterprises, Vasai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1474/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1474/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Dcit, Central Circle-3 बिधम/ Sai Sugam Enterprises D- Room No. 11, A-Wing, 6Th Ii-01/02 Aakansha Vs. Floor, Ashar I. T. Park, Commercial Comp., Road No. 16-Z Wagle Nallasopara (West), Industrial Estate, Thane 401209. (W)-400604. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abvfs4193G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi Revenue By: Dr. Kishore Dhule (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune Dated 10.02.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi Pointed Out That The Ao Had Levied An Amount Of Rs.71,78,070/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) By Penalty Order Dated 14.02.2017 For Ay. 2011-12. According To Him, On Appeal, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Taken Note Of The Fact That In The Notice Issued By Ao Before Levy Of Penalty, The Ao Failed To Strike Out The Faults/Charges Which Are Not Applicable To Assessee. Meaning, Ao In The Penalty Notice Didn’T Specify The Fault/Charge Against Which Assessee Is Being Proceeded Against For Levy Of Penalty; & So, Assesse Was In The Dark As To What Was The Fault Charged Against

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule (DR)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…to Ld CIT(A) the penalty levied by AO is vitiated and ordered deletion of penalty. And for taking such a view, the Ld. CIT(A) 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.)…

Rajdev Steel (India), Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1430/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamchandranFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…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 Rajdev Steel (India) ITA no.1430/Mum./2023 aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, the penalty order passed under secti…

Ram Narayan Contractor, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-62(1), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 957/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Section 129Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 272Section 272BSection 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, DR. B.R.R.KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER Ram Narayan Contractor ACIT 23, Bahi Veer Singh Marg Circle-62(1) Gole Market Vs. New Delhi New Delhi-110 001 PAN-AABFR 5903N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Mr. KVSR Krishana, Advocate Respondent by Mr. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 24/07/2023 Date of Pronouncement 27/07/2023 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM: This appeal by Assessee is filed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, New Delhi [Ld. CIT(A)”, for short]…

Zarina Zikar Virani, Mumbai vs. ITO-20(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1394/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Kumar KaleFor Respondent: Shri Suresh D. Gaikwad (Sr. AR)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…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, 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 Promotions (P.) Ltd. (Tax Appea…

Arun Duggal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 439/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…direct the Registry to place these two Tax Appeals before the Division Bench concerned for further adjudication." 8. 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. Page 10 of 12 Arun Duggal vs. ACIT 9. Ratio of this full…