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

The Income-Tax Officer -41(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mr Jaiprakash Dhirajlal Barbhaya, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 475/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Bleincome Tax Officer – 41(2)(2) V. Jaiprakash Dhirajlal Barbhaya 301, Mahavir Apartment Room No. 636, 6Th Floor Nahur Road, Sarvodaya Nagar Kautilya Bhavan Mumbai – 400080 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Agppb9599J (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

…e issued u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act it appears that the charge was for both the limbs. Page No. 4 Jaiprakash Dhirajlal Barbhaya 8. An identical issue came up before Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Full Bench at Goa) in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT [434 ITR 1] and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held as under: - “Question No.1: If the assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or the other, or both grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), does a mere defect in the notice—not striking off the irrelevant matter—vitiate the penalty proceedings? 181. It does. The primary…

Himanshu Malhotra (Through Legal Heir of Late Sh. Ashok Malhotra), New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle -14, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1033/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Imposing Penalty. Page 2 Of 15

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 253Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1025/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05) ITA No.1027/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) ITA No.1029/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) ITA No.1031/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11) ITA No.1033/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13) Himanshu Malhotra Asst.CIT (through legal heir of late Circle-14 Sh. Ashok Malhotra) Vs. New Delhi House No.1310 Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Delhi-110 033 PAN-AAPPM 8352G (Appellant) (Respondent) Page 1 of 15 ITA Nos.102…

Himanshu Malhotra (Through Legal Heir of Late Sh. Ashok Malhotra), New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle -14, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1032/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Imposing Penalty. Page 2 Of 15

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 253Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1025/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05) ITA No.1027/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) ITA No.1029/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) ITA No.1031/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11) ITA No.1033/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13) Himanshu Malhotra Asst.CIT (through legal heir of late Circle-14 Sh. Ashok Malhotra) Vs. New Delhi House No.1310 Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Delhi-110 033 PAN-AAPPM 8352G (Appellant) (Respondent) Page 1 of 15 ITA Nos.102…

Himanshu Malhotra (Through Legal Heir of Late Sh. Ashok Malhotra), New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1031/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Imposing Penalty. Page 2 Of 15

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 253Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1025/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05) ITA No.1027/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) ITA No.1029/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) ITA No.1031/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11) ITA No.1033/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13) Himanshu Malhotra Asst.CIT (through legal heir of late Circle-14 Sh. Ashok Malhotra) Vs. New Delhi House No.1310 Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Delhi-110 033 PAN-AAPPM 8352G (Appellant) (Respondent) Page 1 of 15 ITA Nos.102…

Himanshu Malhotra (Through Legal Heir of Late Sh. Ashok Malhotra), New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1030/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Imposing Penalty. Page 2 Of 15

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 253Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1025/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05) ITA No.1027/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) ITA No.1029/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) ITA No.1031/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11) ITA No.1033/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13) Himanshu Malhotra Asst.CIT (through legal heir of late Circle-14 Sh. Ashok Malhotra) Vs. New Delhi House No.1310 Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Delhi-110 033 PAN-AAPPM 8352G (Appellant) (Respondent) Page 1 of 15 ITA Nos.102…

Himanshu Malhotra (Through Legal Heir of Late (Sh. Ashok Malhotra), New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1029/DEL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Imposing Penalty. Page 2 Of 15

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 253Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1025/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05) ITA No.1027/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) ITA No.1029/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) ITA No.1031/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11) ITA No.1033/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13) Himanshu Malhotra Asst.CIT (through legal heir of late Circle-14 Sh. Ashok Malhotra) Vs. New Delhi House No.1310 Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Delhi-110 033 PAN-AAPPM 8352G (Appellant) (Respondent) Page 1 of 15 ITA Nos.102…

Himanshu Malhotra (Through Legal Heir of Late. Sh. Ashok Malhotra), New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1028/DEL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Imposing Penalty. Page 2 Of 15

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 253Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1025/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05) ITA No.1027/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) ITA No.1029/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) ITA No.1031/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11) ITA No.1033/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13) Himanshu Malhotra Asst.CIT (through legal heir of late Circle-14 Sh. Ashok Malhotra) Vs. New Delhi House No.1310 Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Delhi-110 033 PAN-AAPPM 8352G (Appellant) (Respondent) Page 1 of 15 ITA Nos.102…

Himanshu Malhotra (Through Legal Heir of Late Sh. Ashok Malhotra), New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1027/DEL/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Imposing Penalty. Page 2 Of 15

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 253Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1025/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05) ITA No.1027/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) ITA No.1029/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) ITA No.1031/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11) ITA No.1033/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13) Himanshu Malhotra Asst.CIT (through legal heir of late Circle-14 Sh. Ashok Malhotra) Vs. New Delhi House No.1310 Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Delhi-110 033 PAN-AAPPM 8352G (Appellant) (Respondent) Page 1 of 15 ITA Nos.102…

Himanshu Malhotra (Through Legal Heir of Late Sh. Ashok Malhotra), New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1026/DEL/2023[20005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023

Bench: Imposing Penalty. Page 2 Of 15

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 253Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1025/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05) ITA No.1027/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) ITA No.1029/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) ITA No.1031/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11) ITA No.1033/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13) Himanshu Malhotra Asst.CIT (through legal heir of late Circle-14 Sh. Ashok Malhotra) Vs. New Delhi House No.1310 Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Delhi-110 033 PAN-AAPPM 8352G (Appellant) (Respondent) Page 1 of 15 ITA Nos.102…

Himanshu Malhotra (Through Legal Heir of Late Sh. Ashok Malhotra), New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1025/DEL/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Imposing Penalty. Page 2 Of 15

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 253Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1025/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05) ITA No.1027/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) ITA No.1029/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) ITA No.1031/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11) ITA No.1033/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13) Himanshu Malhotra Asst.CIT (through legal heir of late Circle-14 Sh. Ashok Malhotra) Vs. New Delhi House No.1310 Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Delhi-110 033 PAN-AAPPM 8352G (Appellant) (Respondent) Page 1 of 15 ITA Nos.102…

Himanshu Malhotra (Through Legal Heir of Late Sh. Ashok Malhotra), New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle -14, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1024/DEL/2023[2001-002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2001-002

Bench: Imposing Penalty. Page 2 Of 15

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 253Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1025/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05) ITA No.1027/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) ITA No.1029/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) ITA No.1031/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11) ITA No.1033/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13) Himanshu Malhotra Asst.CIT (through legal heir of late Circle-14 Sh. Ashok Malhotra) Vs. New Delhi House No.1310 Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Delhi-110 033 PAN-AAPPM 8352G (Appellant) (Respondent) Page 1 of 15 ITA Nos.102…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal

ITA - 345 / 2023HC Delhi06 Jul 2023
Section 264Section 271(1)(c)

…s satisfaction, as to which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was triggered qua the respondent/assessee, placed reliance on the following judgments: PCIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 432 ITR 84 and Mohd. Farhan A Sheikh v. DCIT, (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom)(FB). 13. Thus, having regard to the aforesaid, the Tribunal concluded, that the penalty order could not be sustained, and consequently allowed the appeal of the respondent/assessee. 14. Mr Kumar, in support of his appeal, has vehemently argued that the impugned order is erroneous. In support of his submission, Mr Kumar has relied up…

Jik Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-2(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1039/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2023AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sunil TalatiFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37

…another limb is bad in law.” (Emphasis Supplied) 15. The above judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court was taken into consideration by the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Belgaum : 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) wherein it was held 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 8 in Section 271(1)(c), does a mere defect in the notice—not striking off the irrelevant matter—vitiate the penalty proceedings? 181. It does. The primary burden li…

Chevron Metal Products P Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-45, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 999/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 999/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Chevron Metal बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle 8(2) Products Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 22-A Panton Bunder Road, Mumbai-400020. Near, Britannia Darukhana, Raey Road, Mumbai- 400010. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2190E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2023 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)-50, Mumbai Dated 21.03.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. This Is Second Round Of Litigation. Since The Aforesaid Appeal Was Heard Along With Ita. Nos. 1000 & 1001/Mum/2022 & Order Pronounced On 29.11.2022, However, By Way Of An M.A, It Was Brought To Our Notice That We Have Not Passed The Order In Ita. No. 999/Mum/2022 For Ay 2011-12, So, We Have Recalled Our Order (Supra) For The Limited Purpose For Adjudicating The Penalty Appeal In Ita. No. 999/Mum/2022. Therefore, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal. 3. The Assessee Has Challenged The Penalty Levied By Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Issuing A Valid Notice

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta (Sr. AR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ainst for levy of penalty, the notice itself is bad in law, and consequently the penalty levied is vitiated. For that, we rely on the decisions of the Full bench of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional of 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 to which the assessee is being proceeded against would vitiate the penalty itself. And thus the Hon’ble Court upheld the view of the division bench order in the case of PCIT Vs. Goa Dourad…

Finquest Financial Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Comm. of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 636/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri V. G. Ginde/ Kumar KaleFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U Matkari (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 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…

Kishor Digambar Patil, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Nashik

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 55/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 54 & 55/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kishor Digambar Patil, 03, Saras Apartment, Patil Lane 04, College Rd., Nashik – 422005 Pan: Aarpp2052J . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Shardul Sonawane & Ms Abhilasha PawarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath Murkunde
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

…limb under sub-section (9) thereof pertaining to “misreporting of income”. Learned counsel quoted the erstwhile earlier penalty mechanism provided u/sec.271(1)(c) of the Act wherein the law stood duly settled in light of Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh vs. ACIT [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (FB); CIT vs. M/s. SSA’s Emerald Meadows [2016] 386 ITR (St.) 13 (SC) and CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) ITAT-Pune Page 14 of 20 ITA No.54 & 55/PUN/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 (HC) that an assessing authority has to specify the corresponding limb in the show cause notice to be issued u/sec.274 of the Ac…

Kishor Digambar Patil, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Nashik

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 54/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 54 & 55/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kishor Digambar Patil, 03, Saras Apartment, Patil Lane 04, College Rd., Nashik – 422005 Pan: Aarpp2052J . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Shardul Sonawane & Ms Abhilasha PawarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath Murkunde
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

…limb under sub-section (9) thereof pertaining to “misreporting of income”. Learned counsel quoted the erstwhile earlier penalty mechanism provided u/sec.271(1)(c) of the Act wherein the law stood duly settled in light of Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh vs. ACIT [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (FB); CIT vs. M/s. SSA’s Emerald Meadows [2016] 386 ITR (St.) 13 (SC) and CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) ITAT-Pune Page 14 of 20 ITA No.54 & 55/PUN/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 (HC) that an assessing authority has to specify the corresponding limb in the show cause notice to be issued u/sec.274 of the Ac…

B.H.Kothari, Rep by L/H Nina B.Kothari, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3543/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3542 & 3543/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 The Estate Of (Late) Shri B.H. The Dcit, Kothari, V. Corporate Circle 4(2), Rep. By Legal Heir Smt. Nina Chennai – 34. Kothari, No.18, Kothari Bagh, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Agjpk 7393K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2023

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…d 08.12.2020 following the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, (2013) 359 ITR 565 and also Full Bench decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd.Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT, (2021) 434 ITR 1. Once this issue is settled by various High Courts, the assessee raised this legal issue which goes to the root of the matter and there was omission to raise this specific ground because this issue got crystallized when the Full Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd.Farhan A. Shaikh, supra, has considered this issue. The assessee for admis…

B.H.Kothari, Rep by L/H Nina B.Kothari, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3542/CHNY/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3542 & 3543/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 The Estate Of (Late) Shri B.H. The Dcit, Kothari, V. Corporate Circle 4(2), Rep. By Legal Heir Smt. Nina Chennai – 34. Kothari, No.18, Kothari Bagh, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Agjpk 7393K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2023

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…d 08.12.2020 following the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, (2013) 359 ITR 565 and also Full Bench decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd.Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT, (2021) 434 ITR 1. Once this issue is settled by various High Courts, the assessee raised this legal issue which goes to the root of the matter and there was omission to raise this specific ground because this issue got crystallized when the Full Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd.Farhan A. Shaikh, supra, has considered this issue. The assessee for admis…

Tirupati Reddy Mukku, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax-27(3), Mumbai

ITA 857/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2010-2011
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil NatekarFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…the aforesaid submissions of the Ld. 13. Departmental Representative do not advance the case of the Revenue in view of the fact that the full Bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has, in the case of Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh Vs DCIT, Central Circle-1, Belgaum : 434 ITR 1 (Bombay), held 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 Section 271(1)(c), does a mere defect in the notice—not striking off the irrelevant matter—vitiate the penalty proceedings? 181. It does. The primary burden lies on the Revenu…