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 367,154 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

Vijay Power Generators Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-17 (3), New Delhi

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

ITA 1140/DEL/2008[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2001-2002

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 432 ITR 84 (Del.) has held that the penalty order passed is liable to be quashed on account of this defect which is fatal. We further note that Full Bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT 434 ITR 1 (Bom)(FB) has held that no specification of charge in the penalty notice leads to same become void and penalty on that count is to be deleted. Hon’ble Court held as under :- “Head Note only : S.271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment –Non-striking off of the irrelevant part while issuing notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, - Order is ba…

Soregam Sa, Belgium vs. ACIT International Taxation Tax Gurgaon, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1919/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 270ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…irect the Registry to place these two Tax Appeals before the Division Bench concerned for further adjudication." 6.1 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 (1)(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. 7. In the case of PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance C…

Soregam Sa, Belgium vs. ACIT International Taxationtax Gurgaon, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1918/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 270ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…irect the Registry to place these two Tax Appeals before the Division Bench concerned for further adjudication." 6.1 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 (1)(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. 7. In the case of PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance C…

Sachin Poddar, Jamshedpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur, Jamshepur

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

ITA 87/RAN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 87/Ran/2022 (Assessment Year-2014-15) (Virtual Hearing) Sachin Poddar, D.C.I.T., CA Akshay Ringasia, Suite No. 3, 2nd Central Circle, Vs. Floor, Aviskar Bumra Enclave, Diagonal Jamshedpur. Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001. PAN No. AKDPP 1483 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A. Department represented by Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR Date of hearing 19/03/2025 Date of pronouncement 28/03/2025 O R…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ranchi vs. Shri Kamal Bhushan, Ranchi

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 36/RAN/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 139Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 36/Ran/2021 (Assessment Year-2014-15) (Virtual Hearing) A.C.I.T., Shri Kamal Bhushan, Central Circle-1, Bishwanath Bhawan, Sukhdeo Vs. Ranchi. Nagar, Behind Uphar Cinema, Hehal, Madhukam, Ranchi-834005. PAN No. AFIPB 1844 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue C.O. No. 20/Ran/2021 (Arising out of ITA No. 36/Ran/2021)(AY: 2014-15) Shri Kamal Bhushan, A.C.I.T., Bishwanath Bhawan, Sukhdeo Nagar, Central Circle-1, Vs. Behind Uphar Cinema, Hehal, Ranchi.…

Pratap Nagnaji Rajgor, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 865/MUM/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

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

…law was admitted by Hon’ble High Court, penalty cannot be levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4.3. The Ld. AR placed reliance on a Full Court Bench decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court at Goa in case of Mohd Farhan A. Shaikh V. DOT, Belgaum reported in (2021) 434 ITR 1. It is submitted that, the ratio of the decisions squarely applies to the 5 AY: 2009-10 Pratap Nagnaji Rajgor facts of the present case and – the contention, that notice u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued mechanically, in a printed format, without striking of irrelevant portion in bad in law. 4.4. On the contrary, the Ld. DR submitted t…

Raju Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 248/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 246/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 247/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 248/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Raju Mohan Gurnani V/S. Ito, Central Circle 5(2) बिधम Flat No. 2101, Moraj Casa Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Grande, Plot No. 57, Sector Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra 17, Koperkhairne Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharashtra-410209 East, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpg9103B Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…-17 Raju Mohan Gurnani specified as to whether the penalty is sought to be levied for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In this regard, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case Mohammed Farhan A Shaikh v/s DCIT 434 ITR 1 has held that defect in the notice of not striking off the irrelevant matter, would vitiate the penalty proceedings. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment read 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), do…

Raju Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 247/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 246/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 247/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 248/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Raju Mohan Gurnani V/S. Ito, Central Circle 5(2) बिधम Flat No. 2101, Moraj Casa Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Grande, Plot No. 57, Sector Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra 17, Koperkhairne Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharashtra-410209 East, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpg9103B Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…-17 Raju Mohan Gurnani specified as to whether the penalty is sought to be levied for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In this regard, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case Mohammed Farhan A Shaikh v/s DCIT 434 ITR 1 has held that defect in the notice of not striking off the irrelevant matter, would vitiate the penalty proceedings. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment read 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), do…

Raju Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 246/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 246/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 247/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 248/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Raju Mohan Gurnani V/S. Ito, Central Circle 5(2) बिधम Flat No. 2101, Moraj Casa Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Grande, Plot No. 57, Sector Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra 17, Koperkhairne Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharashtra-410209 East, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpg9103B Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…-17 Raju Mohan Gurnani specified as to whether the penalty is sought to be levied for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In this regard, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case Mohammed Farhan A Shaikh v/s DCIT 434 ITR 1 has held that defect in the notice of not striking off the irrelevant matter, would vitiate the penalty proceedings. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment read 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), do…

Milind Jagannath Bhole, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Thane

In the result, in terms of paragraph 6 above, the appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 243/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sumit MantriFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Section 274 of the Act is bad in law and therefore, the said notice and consequent penalty order should be quashed in view of the judgment of 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). Per Contra, the Learned Departmental Representative placed reliance upon the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer and the impugned order passed by the CIT(A). 5. We have perused the assessment order, dated 25/03/2013, penalty notice dated, 26/03/2013, penalty order, dated 27/08/2021, and the impugned order, dated 25/11/2024,pass…

Gajanan Ferro Private Limited, Jamshedpur vs. DCIT Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 140/RAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 1ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 139 & 140/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2017-18 & 2018-19) (Virtual Hearing) Gajanan Ferro Private Limited, D.C.I.T., CA Akshay Ringasia, Suite No. 3, 2nd Central Circle, Vs. Floor, Aviskar Bumra Enclave, Diagonal Jamshedpur. Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001. PAN No. AAFCM 3714 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A. Department represented by Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR Date of hearing 10/03/2025 Dat…

Gajanan Ferro Private Limited, Jamshedpur vs. DCIT Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 139/RAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 1ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 139 & 140/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2017-18 & 2018-19) (Virtual Hearing) Gajanan Ferro Private Limited, D.C.I.T., CA Akshay Ringasia, Suite No. 3, 2nd Central Circle, Vs. Floor, Aviskar Bumra Enclave, Diagonal Jamshedpur. Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001. PAN No. AAFCM 3714 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A. Department represented by Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR Date of hearing 10/03/2025 Dat…

Alliance Dealers Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 89/RAN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 89/Ran/2022 (Assessment Year-2015-16) (Virtual Hearing) Alliance Dealers Private Limited, D.C.I.T., CA Akshay Ringasia, Suite No. 3, 2nd Central Circle, Vs. Floor, Aviskar Bumra Enclave, Diagonal Jamshedpur. Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001. PAN No. AAHCA 2615 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A. Department represented by Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR Date of hearing 10/03/2025 Date of pronounce…

Nh Securities Limited, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 155/MUM/2025[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 1999-2000

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y. : 1999-2000

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar
Section 10(33)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69

…one of the two clauses, viz. concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, have been scored out. Reliance in this regard is placed on the Full Bench decision of Bombay High Court in Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs DCIT, 434 ITR 1 (Bombay). 3 N H Securities Ltd. 7. The learned AR has produced details of addition under Section 68 of the Act on which the penalty is levied by the Assessing Officer by order dated 30.03.2019. It is submitted that out of the addition in relation to nine parties, only four relating to (i) Raj Mittal, (ii) Sushil C. Choksi, (iii) Adinath Textiles a…

Kuber Khaini Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in AY 2006-07 is allowed and

ITA 885/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6053/DEL/2016 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) ITA No.884/DEL/2022 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) ITA No.885/DEL/2022 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) ITA No.886/DEL/2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) ACIT, Central Circle 1, vs. M/s. Sahara India Commercial New Delhi. Corporation Limited, Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata — 700 071. (PAN : AADCS6118F) CO No.18/Del/2017 (in ITA No.6053 /DEL/2016) (Assessment Year: 2006-07) CO No.186/Del/2022 (in ITA No…

Shri Dilip J Thakkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle -6(4), Mumbai

ITA 6700/MUM/2024[20007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025

Bench: SHRI. RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri.Dilip ThakkarFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal (CIT DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 274

…the same was issued without striking off the irrelevant limb/portions. In support, reliance was placed by the Assessee on the judgment of 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). 7. Vide order, dated 12/11/2024, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and rejected the above contention of the Assessee holding as under: “5.3.3 Vide letter dated 17.11.2018 and 18.02.2024, the appellant submitted the notice issued u/s.271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 is bad in law because the AO had not struck irrelevant line of the notice. To support…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 Nanded, Nanded vs. Satyawan Arjunrao Shinde, Osmanabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2109/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-1, Nanded. Vs. Satyawan Arjunrao Shinde, Nagar Accident Hospital, Gore Complex, Samta Nagar, Osmanabad- 413501. Pan : Baeps8869J Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri B. P. Jaju Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.08.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Pune-12 [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Facts That The Assessee Has Suppressed Professional Receipts Not Shown In His Itr, Ld. Cit(A)-12, Pune Vide Letter Dtd.02/01/2023 Directed That Penalty Proceedings U/S 270A Of The Act May Be Initiated By The Ao At The Time Of Giving Effect To The Appeal Order Dtd.28/11/2022. Accordingly Ao Initiated Penalty Proceedings As Per Clause (E) Of Sub-Section 9 Of Section 270A Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri B. P. JajuFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 133ASection 2Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 274Section 9

…ned Assessing Officer’s failure to pinpoint the corresponding default of assessee’s part indeed vitiates the entire proceedings as per (2022) 443 ITR 186 (Del) Schneider Electric South Asia Ltd. Vs. ACIT (in the new scheme) and Md. Farhan S.A. Vs. ACIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) in section 271(1)(c) old penal provision. We order accordingly. The impugned penalty of Rs.15,54,736/- stands deleted in very terms.” 10. From the perusal of the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) we find that Ld. CIT(A) has simply followed the above order passed by Jurisdictional Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal. Ld. DR could not bring any advers…

Vijay Kumar Mittal, Jamshedpur vs. ACIT Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 142/RAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(2)(a)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 141 & 142/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2017-18 and 2018-19) Vijay Kumar Mittal, A.C.I.T., CA Akshay Ringasia, Suite No. 3, 2nd Central Circle, Vs. Floor, Aviskar Bumra Enclave, Diagonal Jamshedpur. Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001. PAN No. ACXPM 8580 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by None Department represented by Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR Date of hearing 04/02/2025 Date of pronouncement 20/02/2025 O R D E…

Vijay Kumar Mittal, Jamshedpur vs. ACIT Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 141/RAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(2)(a)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 141 & 142/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2017-18 and 2018-19) Vijay Kumar Mittal, A.C.I.T., CA Akshay Ringasia, Suite No. 3, 2nd Central Circle, Vs. Floor, Aviskar Bumra Enclave, Diagonal Jamshedpur. Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001. PAN No. ACXPM 8580 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by None Department represented by Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR Date of hearing 04/02/2025 Date of pronouncement 20/02/2025 O R D E…

Gajanan Ferro Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 86/RAN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 84, 85, & 86/Ran/2022 (Assessment Year-2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Gajanan Ferro Private Limited, D.C.I.T., CA Akshay Ringasia, Suite No. 3, 2nd Central Circle, Vs. Floor, Aviskar Bumra Enclave, Diagonal Jamshedpur. Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001. PAN No. AAFCM 3714 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by None Department represented by Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR Date of hearing 06/02/2025 Date of pronouncemen…