Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT

Nitin Parkash, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 3, Thane

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 817/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं. 1540/मुं/2018 ("न.व. 2011-12) Mr. Nitin Parkash , 221/222, Swasstik Plaza, Pokhran Road No.2, Subhash Nagar, Thane (W) – 400 601 Pan: Aaspp-1411-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 3, Thane. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Akash Kumar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Tharian Oommen& Shri B.K.Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 27/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.817/Mum/2015 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Thane [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 01/01/2015 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. This Appeal Is In The Second Round Before The Tribunal. Earlier This Appeal Of The Assessee Was Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 19/03/2018. Thereafter, The Assessee Filed Miscellaneous Application, Vide Ma No.271/Mum/2018 Seeking

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “ बी ” "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एम बालगणेश, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B ”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं. 817/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं. 1540/मुं/2018 ("न.व. 2011-12) Mr. Nitin Parkash , 221/222, Swasstik Plaza, Pokhran Road No.2, Subhash Nagar, Thane (W) – 400 601 PAN: AASPP-1411-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3, Thane. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant by : S/Shri Rajiv Khandelwal and Akash Kumar…

Nitin Parkash, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 3, Thane

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 817/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं. 1540/मुं/2018 ("न.व. 2011-12) Mr. Nitin Parkash , 221/222, Swasstik Plaza, Pokhran Road No.2, Subhash Nagar, Thane (W) – 400 601 Pan: Aaspp-1411-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 3, Thane. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Akash Kumar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Tharian Oommen& Shri B.K.Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 27/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.817/Mum/2015 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Thane [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 01/01/2015 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. This Appeal Is In The Second Round Before The Tribunal. Earlier This Appeal Of The Assessee Was Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 19/03/2018. Thereafter, The Assessee Filed Miscellaneous Application, Vide Ma No.271/Mum/2018 Seeking

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “ बी ” "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एम बालगणेश, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B ”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं. 817/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं. 1540/मुं/2018 ("न.व. 2011-12) Mr. Nitin Parkash , 221/222, Swasstik Plaza, Pokhran Road No.2, Subhash Nagar, Thane (W) – 400 601 PAN: AASPP-1411-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3, Thane. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant by : S/Shri Rajiv Khandelwal and Akash Kumar…

Korpus Financial Services Pvt Ltd, Fort Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. Circle -44, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

…s a substantial legal issued involved which needs to be decided first as raised through ground no.1 and 3 by the assessee, keeping in view the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Mumbai in 3 the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) dated 11.03.2021. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. At the outset, the Ld. AR assailing the action of the AO levying penalty u/s 271B of the Act brought to our notice that the show cause notice issued by AO u/s 274 r.w.s 271B of the Act dated 22.03.2013 & 08.07.2013 has not spelled out specifically the fault/charge…

M/S Resources Realty P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Acti-Central Circle-11(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1830/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s. Resource Realty Pvt. बिधम/ ACIT-Central Circle- Ltd. 11(1)(1) Vs. 4th Floor, Dheeraj Arma Room No.4, 3rd Floor, Anant Kanekar Marg, Mittal Court, Nariman Bandra (E), Mumbai- Point, Mumbai-400021. 400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAECR0433R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: None Revenue by: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 25/07/2022 घोषणा की ता…

Asst. CIT Circle-9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Future E-Commerce Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhasst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Future E-Commerce Income Tax, Circle- Infrastructure Limited 9(3)(2), Room No. 418, Ground Floor, Knowledge 4Th Floor, Aayakar House, Off Jogeshwari Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikhroli Link Road, Mumbai – 400020 Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai - 400060 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabcf1008K Respondent .. Appellant

…2022 and one of the ground taken that A.O had not struck off the irrelevant portion in the notice showed non application of mind by the A.O while issuing the notice. The ld. Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom). The ld. Counsel has also submitted that ld. CIT(A) has not specifically dealt with the ground of the assessee that A.O has not specified the limb of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act in the notice issued. On the other hand the ld. D.R. supported the order of lower authorities. 5. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. Assessment…

Magestic Premises Pvt Ltd., Thane vs. DCIT CC 2, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4974/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Magestic Premises Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-2 201, 2Nd Floor, Oasis Silver Ashar It Park 6Th Floor, Vs. Stone, Near Gaganan Wagle Industrial Estate Maharaj Temple Ram (W), Thane-400604. Maruti Road, Thane, West, Thane-400601. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecm5625L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Prateek Jain Revenue By: Shri T. Sankar (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022 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)-11, Pune Dated 29.02.2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Issuing Valid Notice (Without Specifying The Fault/Charge). 3. At The Outset, We Note That There Is Delay Of More Than 1177 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. In The Condonation Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Wherein The Assessee’S Director Has Sworn Before The Notary Public & Stated That Even Though The Impugned Order Was Passed U/S 153A Of The Act, It Was Handed Over To Him On 10.03.2016 & He In-Turn Handed Over The Same To One Of His Office Staff (Shri

…Y. 2011-12 Magestic Premises Pvt. Ltd. notice itself is bad in law, the resultant penalty levied is vitiated. For that, he 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 has 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 Court upheld the view of the division bench order in the case of PCIT Vs. Goa Dourado Promotio…

Unique Estates Dev. Co. Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT Cent. Cir-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2110/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Unique Estates Dev. Co. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(1) Pvt. Ltd. Room No.1906, 19Th Vs. Construction House-B, 2Nd Floor, Air India Bldg, Floor, 623, Linking Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Khar (W), Mumbai-400052. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu0699N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sanjay B. Sawant Revenue By: Ms. Vranda U. Matkarni सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/07/2022 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)-52, Mumbai Dated 26.10.2021 For Assessment Year 2011-12 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is As Under: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, On Issue Of Advancing Of Interest Free Loans Of Rs.4,68,220/- & So Called Bogus Purchases Of Rs.5,84,076/-.” 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Sanjay B. Sawant Brought To Our Notice That The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income On 30.09.2011 Declaring The Total Income Of Rs.12,39,12,768/-. The Scrutiny Assessment Was Completed On 18.03.2014 U/S 143(3) Of The Act Assessing Total Income (Normal Computation) At Rs.21,59,51,554/-

…hough the assessee asked the AO to specify the fault, the AO did not head to it and went ahead to levy the penalty, which is bad in law as held by 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), 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 Dourado Promotions (P.…

Roshan Sequeira, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.343/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Shri Roshan Sequeira बिधम/ Dcit-24(3) Iqn Data Solutions Pvt. Piramal Chambers, Vs. Ltd., 347, Laxmi Plaza Indl. Mumbai-400012. Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400059. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Asbps3025N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/07/2022 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)-36, Mumbai Dated (Not Specified) For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. None Appeared For The Assessee. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Discernable From Grounds Of Appeal Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act To The Tune Of Rs.18,00,000/-. 3. At The Outset, We Note That A Notice Has Been Issued By The Ao Dated 04.03.2014 Proposing Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Which According To Assessee Is Bad In Law. From A Perusal Of The Penalty Notice Dated 04.03.2014, We Note That The Ao Has Not Specified The Fault/Charge For Which Assessee Has Been Put To Notice For Levy Of Penalty. Meaning, The Show Cause Notice Does Not Specify For What

…e proposed penalty. Therefore, since show cause notice itself is bad in law, 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…

Nna Cre Properties LLP, Mumbai vs. ACIT 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1499/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Nna Cre Properties Llp बिधम/ Acit-20(2) B-4101, B-Wing, One Room No.217, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Avighna Park, Mahadeo Piramal Chambers, Palav Marg, Curry Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400012. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakfn0759M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2022 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)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 23.06.2021 For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: - “1. Learned Ao Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Issuing Notice U/S 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) Without Application Of Mind, As The Same Is Issued Without Mentioning That Whether It Is Levied For Concealment Of The Particulars Of Income Or Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income. It Is Note Know To Appellate As To Under Which Ground The Penalty Is Proposed To Be Levied. Hon. Cit(A) Has Also Erred In Not Considering The Same. 2. Learned Ao Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.1,29,503/- On Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.4,19,102/-

…d 07.06.2017 is bad in law and therefore the penalty levied is vitiated. For that, we rely on the decisions of the Full bench of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. 3 A.Y. 2014-15 NNA CRE Properties LLP 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 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 Dourado P…

Vinati Saraf Mutreja, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT -26(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amrjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1363/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Vinati Saraf Mutreja बिधम/ Acit-26(3) 302, 3Rd Floor, Vinayak 501, 5Th Floor, Vs. Heights, Nargis Dutt Road, Pratyakshkar Building, Bandra (W), Mumbai- Bkc, Bandra (E), 400050. Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Artps7699M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Siddharth Kothari Revenue By: Vranda U Matkari (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2022 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)-38, Mumbai Dated 20.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Against The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Levying Penalty Of Rs.6,75,938/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Which According To Assessee, Was Based On A Defective Notice & So It Was Bad In Law. 3. The Brief Fact Of The Case Is That The Assessee Had Paid Donation Of Rs.12,50,000/- To M/S. Human Genetics & Population (Hgp) U/S 35(1)(Ii) Of The Act & After Making Donation, The Assessee Claimed Weighted Deduction Of Rs.21,87,500/-. Later, The Ao Received Information From Ddit(Inv.), Unit Kolkata About Beneficiaries Of Bogus Donation To M/S. Hgp & As Per The Information, The Assessee

…ly stated in the notice, the impugned notice issued by the AO dated 30.11.2016 (P.B. page no. 14) is bad in law as held by several judicial decisions including the Full Court of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Moh. Farhan A Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom) which upheld the ratio of decision of the Division Bench in the case of PCIT Vs. Goa Dourado Promotion Pvt. 3 A.Y. 2014-15 Vinati Sarat Mutreja Ltd. (Tax Appeal No. 18 of 2019, dated 29.11.2019), in the case of CIT-11 Vs. Samson Perichery dated 05.01.2017 and did not approve the law laid to the contrary by Division Bench in the case of CIT V…