Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT

Nandivardhan Construction Pvt Ltd., Thane vs. DCIT CC-2, Thane

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4973/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिधम/ Nandivardhan Construction Dcit, Central Circle-2 Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 201, 2Nd Floor, Oasis Silver Wagle Industrial Estate Stone, Near Gajanan (West), Thane-400604. Maharaj Temple Ram Maruti Road, Thane-West, Thane- 400601. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn1260G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Prateek Jain Revenue By: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.02.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2007-08 In Which The Penalty Levied By Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant’S Case & In Law, The Notice Issued Under Section 274 Read With Section 271(1)(C) By The Ld. Assessing Officer Without Recording Any Satisfaction Is Bad In Law & The Consequential Penalty Order

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4973/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिधम/ Nandivardhan Construction DCIT, Central Circle-2 Ashar IT Park, 6th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 201, 2nd Floor, Oasis Silver Wagle Industrial Estate Stone, Near Gajanan (West), Thane-400604. Maharaj temple Ram Maruti Road, Thane-West, Thane- 400601. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACCN1260G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri Prateek Jain Revenue by: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. AR)…

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5075/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Maharashtra State Electricity बिधम/ Acit, Circle-10(1) Distribution Co. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Vs. Prakashgad, 1St Floor, Anant Karve Road, Mumbai- Kanekar Marg, Station Road, 400020. Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecm2933K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Niraj D. Sheth & Ketan Ved Revenue By: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 03.05.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2006-07 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1:1 The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Upholding The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S. 271 (1) (C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On The Appellant.

….03.2011 was passed to levy the penalty under both the limbs. According to the law, there should be specific limb to levy the penalty. In this regard, we relied upon the decision of Jurisdiction High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1. The relevant para is hereby reproduced as under: - ITA. No.5075/Mum/2012 A.Y. 2006-07 “180. One course of action before us is curing a defect in the notice by referring to the assessment order, which may or may not contain reasons for the penalty proceedings. The other course of action is the prevention of defect in the notice—and that prevention…

Sunder Katwaru Rajbhar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(4), Kalyan

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 1697/मुं/2018("न.व.2010-11) Shri Sunder Katwaru Rajbhar, C/O. Suresh N. Otwani, 305, 3Rd Floor, Adamji Building, 413, Katha Bazar, Mumbai- 400 009 : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan: Abfpr-8942-L बनाम/ Vs. Income Tax Officer , Ward 3(4), Rani Mansion, 2Nd Floor, Murbad Road, Kalyan (W)- 421 301. : ""थ"/ Respondent

…t notice issued u/s. 274 and 271(1)(c) of the Act is defective as the irrelevant limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act has not been struck of. The full Bench of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mohammed Farhan A. Shaiek vs. DCIT reported as 434 ITR 1 (Bom) has held that non-striking of irrelevant matter in notice would make the notice defective and hence, would vitiate penalty proceedings. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced herein below: “180. One course of action before us is curing a defect in the notice by referring to the assessment order, which may or may not contain reasons…

Kavita Gupta, Mumbai vs. ACIT 26(2), Mumbai

…evying penalty. He further submitted that, in any case, the issue in the present appeal is covered in favour of the Appellant by the judgment of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Belgaum reported in 434 ITR 1 (Bombay), as the penalty notice, dated 26.12.2016, has been issued without deleting or striking off inapplicable part. While the Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the penalty order to support his case, he fairly acknowledged the fact that the penalty notice has been issued under Section 271 read with 274 of the Act without deleting or str…