Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT

Shinde Somanath Appasaheb, Ahmednagar vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Ahmednagar

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.08/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shinde Somnath Appasaheb Shinde Vasti, Shirdi, Tal Rahata, Dist Ahmednagar – 423109 Pan : Emeps4342M . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनधम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Ahmednagar . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 27/09/2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27/09/2022 आदेश / Order Per G.D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2013-14 Is Assailed Against The First Appellate Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 25/09/2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Emanated Out Of Penalty Order [For Short “Po”] Of Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ahmednagar [For Short “Ao”] U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dt.16/06/2017. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 5

…e Court in “Dilip N Shroff Vs JCIT” reported at 291 ITR 519 (SC), and of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay, in plethora of cases inter-alia “CIT Vs Samson Pericherry” reportedin 392 ITR 4, and recently in “Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs DCIT” reported at 434 ITR 1, we are on the considered view that, since the provision of section 271(1)(c) is calamitous, albeit commercial, consequences, and mandatory, hence brooks no trifling or dilution therewith, as a result in the instant case the SCN dt. 13/12/2016 issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act without specifying any limb or charge, is invalid and untenable…

Mrs. Prajakta Kanitkar, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Ratnagir

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.818/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mrs. Prajakta Kanitkar, The Income Tax C/O.Mrs. Vaishali Chetale, Fat Vs Officer, No.102, Swajos Anand A, Anand Ward-1, Ratnagiri. Park, Pune – 411007. Pan: Abrpk 8540 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 22/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement /08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Kolhapur For The A.Y. 2011-12 Dated 09.04.2019, Emanating From The Penalty Order U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. The Assessee Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao In Respect Of Additional Income In The Form Of Long Term Capital Gain Arising On Sale Of Shares In Indian Company.

…urnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This clinching fact has gone unrebutted from the Revenue’s side. 8. Faced with the situation, we quote the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court’s recent Full Bench decision in Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh Vs. ACIT [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom) that such a failure in Assessing Officer’s part in not specifying the corresponding limb in the penalty show cause notice itself is very much fatal to the entire process and not sustainable in law. We adopt the very reasoning herein as well to delete the impugned penalty for this precise reason alone. 9. Respectfully following the propositio…

M/S. Fpi Industries Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 9, Pune

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1355/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S.Fpi Industries Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, Circle-9, Pune. Gat No.147, Mahalungegaon, Vs Chakan, Talegaon Road, Tal- . Khed, Pune – 410501. Pan:Aagcp 3098 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-8, Pune’S Order Dated 16.05.2018 Passed In Appeal No.Pn/Cit(A)- 8/Dcit, Cir-9/8/11/2017-18/71, In Proceedings U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

…accurate 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 decision in hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s recent 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. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th August, 2022. (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE ACCO…

Shrenik Sanjay Ghodawat, Jaysingpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ichalkranji Circle, Ichalkranji

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1321/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shrenik Sanjay Gohdawat, The Acit, Ichalkaranji. 2549, Sushreya, Yashwant Co- Vs Operative Society, . Jaysingpur – 416101 Pan: Ajdpg 7018 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarad Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022

…rate particulars of such an income, as the case may be. 4. Faced with the situation, we note that hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s recent Full Bench decision in hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s recent 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. Delay of 62 days in filing of the instant appeal instituted on 16.08.2018 stated to be attributable to various commun…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Pune vs. Fiat India Automobiles Ltd, Pune

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 2295 & 2296/Pun/2017 करनििाारण वषा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . अऩीऱाथी / Appellant Circle-1(2), Pune. बनाम / V/S. Fiat India Automobiles Limited, B-19A, Ranjangaon Midc, Shirur, Pune. . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pan : Aaacf1716D द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Prashant Gadekar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 26/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Present Appeals Of The Revenue Are Assailed Against Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 13, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 27/07/2016 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Sprung Out Of Orders Of Penalty [For Short “Po”] Of Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1(2), Pune [For Short “Ao”] Dt. 29/03/2017 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2009-10 & 2010-11. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 5

…Court in “Dilip N Shroff Vs JCIT” reported at 291 ITR 519 (SC), and of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay, in plethora of cases inter-alia “CIT Vs Samson Pericherry” reported in 392 ITR 4, and recently in “Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs DCIT” reported at 434 ITR 1, we are of the considered view that, the show cause notice served u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) without specifying any limb or charge, is invalid and untenable in the eyes of law, consequently the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act being bad in law and quashed accordingly. 7. Resultantly, both the appeals of the appellant revenue are dismissed ac…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Pune vs. Fiat India Automobiles Ltd, Pune

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 2295 & 2296/Pun/2017 करनििाारण वषा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . अऩीऱाथी / Appellant Circle-1(2), Pune. बनाम / V/S. Fiat India Automobiles Limited, B-19A, Ranjangaon Midc, Shirur, Pune. . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pan : Aaacf1716D द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Prashant Gadekar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 26/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Present Appeals Of The Revenue Are Assailed Against Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 13, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 27/07/2016 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Sprung Out Of Orders Of Penalty [For Short “Po”] Of Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1(2), Pune [For Short “Ao”] Dt. 29/03/2017 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2009-10 & 2010-11. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 5

…Court in “Dilip N Shroff Vs JCIT” reported at 291 ITR 519 (SC), and of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay, in plethora of cases inter-alia “CIT Vs Samson Pericherry” reported in 392 ITR 4, and recently in “Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs DCIT” reported at 434 ITR 1, we are of the considered view that, the show cause notice served u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) without specifying any limb or charge, is invalid and untenable in the eyes of law, consequently the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act being bad in law and quashed accordingly. 7. Resultantly, both the appeals of the appellant revenue are dismissed ac…