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

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 85/RAN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

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…

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

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

ITA 84/RAN/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

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…

Nitu Singh, Jamshedpur vs. Deputy Commissioner Ofincome Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 82/RAN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

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. 81/Ran/2022 (Assessment Year-2015-16) Rinku Singh, 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. AKXPS 9628 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue I.T.A. No. 82/Ran/2022 (Assessment Year-2015-16) Nitu Singh, D.C.I.T., CA Akshay Ringasia, Suite No. 3, 2nd Central Circle, Vs. Floor, Aviskar Bumra Enclave, Diagonal Jamshedpur. Ro…

Rinku Singh, Jamshedpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 81/RAN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

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. 81/Ran/2022 (Assessment Year-2015-16) Rinku Singh, 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. AKXPS 9628 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue I.T.A. No. 82/Ran/2022 (Assessment Year-2015-16) Nitu Singh, D.C.I.T., CA Akshay Ringasia, Suite No. 3, 2nd Central Circle, Vs. Floor, Aviskar Bumra Enclave, Diagonal Jamshedpur. Ro…

Choudhary Construction Co., Goregaon -W vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 31(1), Mumbai

ITA 4072/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy Svs. Acit, Circle – 31(1) Ms. Choudhari Mumbai – 400020. Constructions Co. 151/129, Sidharth Nagar, Road No. 5, Behind Cinemax Cinema, S.V. Road, Goregoan (W), Mumbai – 400062. Pan/Gir No. Aabfc2689N (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…ing of mandatory notice and on both the limb i.e concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It was further submitted that penalty on both the limbs cannot be imposed and relied upon the decision in the following cases: 1. [2022] 447 ITR 743 (Bom) Ganga Iron and Steel Trading Co. Vs. CIT. 2. [2023] 115 taxman.com (Bom) PCIT Vs. HC Jehangir. 3. [2016] 242 taxmann.com 180 (SC) CIT Vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows. 8. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 9. After having heard both the parties at length, we found that the facts of the present case…

Vectus Industries Ltd., Gwalior vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), Gwalior

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8/AGR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH “DB”: AGRA SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through virtual hearing) ITA Nos. 06, 07 & 08/AGR/2023 (AYs: 2012-13, 2017-18 & 2018-19) Vectus Industries Ltd, Vs. ACIT, 262, Jiwaji Nagar, Thatipur, Circle-1(1), Gwalior, MP Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN:AACCV5516B Assessee by : Shri K. Sampath, Adv Shri V. Rajkumar, Adv Revenue by: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06/02/2025 Date of pronouncement 06/02/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA Nos. 06, 07 & 08/AGR/2023…

Vectus Industries Ltd., Gwalior vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), Gwalior

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH “DB”: AGRA SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through virtual hearing) ITA Nos. 06, 07 & 08/AGR/2023 (AYs: 2012-13, 2017-18 & 2018-19) Vectus Industries Ltd, Vs. ACIT, 262, Jiwaji Nagar, Thatipur, Circle-1(1), Gwalior, MP Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN:AACCV5516B Assessee by : Shri K. Sampath, Adv Shri V. Rajkumar, Adv Revenue by: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06/02/2025 Date of pronouncement 06/02/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA Nos. 06, 07 & 08/AGR/2023…

Vectus Industries Ltd., Gwalior vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), Gwalior

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6/AGR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH “DB”: AGRA SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through virtual hearing) ITA Nos. 06, 07 & 08/AGR/2023 (AYs: 2012-13, 2017-18 & 2018-19) Vectus Industries Ltd, Vs. ACIT, 262, Jiwaji Nagar, Thatipur, Circle-1(1), Gwalior, MP Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN:AACCV5516B Assessee by : Shri K. Sampath, Adv Shri V. Rajkumar, Adv Revenue by: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06/02/2025 Date of pronouncement 06/02/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA Nos. 06, 07 & 08/AGR/2023…

Dey Trading Co., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 49(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 2157/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “ए’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सट"य एवं "ी "द"प कुमार चौबे, "या"यक सद"य के सम" [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member &Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 2157/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dey Trading Co. Vs. ITO, Ward-49(3), Kolkata (PAN: AAEFD 9332 N) ( अपीलाथ" ) Respondent / ""यथ" Appellant / Date of Hearing / सुनवाई 31.12.2024 क" "त"थ Date of Pronouncement/ 23.01.2025 आदेश उ"घोषणा क" "त"थ For the assessee / Smt. Natabrata Bhattacharya, Advocate "नधा"रती क" ओर से For the revenue / राज"व…

Kaleem M. Khan, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO WD 22(3)(2), Navi Mumbai

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA 3484/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2010-11 Mr. Kaleem M. Khan Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-701, Ghanashyam Bhawan, Ward-22(3)(2), Mumbai. Plot No. 10, Sector – 3, (Respondent) Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai 400 701. Pan : Apspk7646H (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande
Section 271(1)(c)

…hat view of the matter, the order imposing penalty deserves to be sustained. 6. We have considered the submissions made. The issue is no longer res integra as it is covered by the decision of jurisdictional High Court in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs CIT, [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) as well as the decision of Supreme Court in State Bank of India (supra). It has been, inter alia, held that non-striking of inapplicable limb would vitiate the order imposing penalty. A co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Lyka Labs Ltd. vs DCIT in ITA No. 1415 to 1417/Mum/2024 decided on 06.06.2024 placing reliance on the aforesaid decision…

DCIT, Central Circle - 7(1), Mumbai vs. Triumph Securities Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 962/MUM/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (VirtuallyFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel – Spl. Counsel
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.962/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2003-04) DCIT, Central Circle-7(1), vs TRIUMPH SECURITIES LTD, Mumbai, 121, Radha Bhavan, 1ST Floor, Room No.676B, 6th Floor, Nagindas, Master Road, Fort, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 023 Mumbai-400 020 PAN: AABCT1510A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Virtually appeared) Respondent by : Dr. P. Daniel – Spl. Counsel Date of hearing : 16/01/2025 Date of pronouncement : 22/01/2025 ORDER PER ANIKESH…

Vedant Properties, Pune vs. ITO Ward 3(1) Pune, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 2216/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 274

…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) (HC) that an assessing authority has to specify the corresponding limb in the show cause notice to be issued w/sec.274 of the Act. Learned counsel's case is that the legal position would hardly be a…

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Sanguine Media Limited, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 480/CHNY/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jan 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1594/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Sanguine Media Limited Ito बनाम/ Plot No.135A, 1St Floor, Non-Corporate Ward-20(5) Chandran Nagar Main Road, Chennai Vs. Chrompet, Chennai-600 044. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-2217-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.480/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito M/S. Sanguine Media Limited बनाम/ Plot No.135A, 1St Floor, Non-Corporate Ward-10(6) Chennai Chandran Nagar Main Road, Vs. Chrompet, Chennai-600 044. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-2217-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Mangla (Ca) (Virtual)- Ld.Ar " थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla (CA) (Virtual)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…naccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the assessee submitted that penalty proceedings stood vitiated in law in terms of various judicial decisions including the decision of larger bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh (125 Taxmann.com 253). The assessee also made submissions on merits and submitted that excess claim of depreciation was attributable to clerical errors wherein the assessee company erroneously entered the same opening WDV of assets as that of previous year. The same was a bona-fide clerical error and the assessee had no intention to claim the excess depreciat…

Sanguine Media Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1594/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1594/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Sanguine Media Limited Ito बनाम/ Plot No.135A, 1St Floor, Non-Corporate Ward-20(5) Chandran Nagar Main Road, Chennai Vs. Chrompet, Chennai-600 044. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-2217-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.480/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito M/S. Sanguine Media Limited बनाम/ Plot No.135A, 1St Floor, Non-Corporate Ward-10(6) Chennai Chandran Nagar Main Road, Vs. Chrompet, Chennai-600 044. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-2217-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Mangla (Ca) (Virtual)- Ld.Ar " थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla (CA) (Virtual)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…naccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the assessee submitted that penalty proceedings stood vitiated in law in terms of various judicial decisions including the decision of larger bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh (125 Taxmann.com 253). The assessee also made submissions on merits and submitted that excess claim of depreciation was attributable to clerical errors wherein the assessee company erroneously entered the same opening WDV of assets as that of previous year. The same was a bona-fide clerical error and the assessee had no intention to claim the excess depreciat…

Gautam Tejraj Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2745/MUM/2023[AY 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Akshay Tapdiya, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…ng officer has not striked off non-applicable portion in the printed show cause notice to indicate the limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act for which the penalty proposed to be imposed. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Md. Farhan A. Shaikh vs DCIT 434 ITR 1 held that non-striking off irrelevant material from the notice issued would vitiate penalty proceedings. Further, the ITAT Mumbai in various decision held that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied where the addition is made on estimated basis. In the light of these findings in the case of the assessee the sales were not disputed an…

Gautam Tejraj Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2742/MUM/2023[AY 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Akshay Tapdiya, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…ng officer has not striked off non-applicable portion in the printed show cause notice to indicate the limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act for which the penalty proposed to be imposed. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Md. Farhan A. Shaikh vs DCIT 434 ITR 1 held that non-striking off irrelevant material from the notice issued would vitiate penalty proceedings. Further, the ITAT Mumbai in various decision held that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied where the addition is made on estimated basis. In the light of these findings in the case of the assessee the sales were not disputed an…

Vital Industries India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-III(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2332/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.G. Srikanth, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Vinod D. Mudaliar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…uding the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of Babuji Jacob v. ITO reported in (2021) 430 ITR 259 (Mad). We also note that the Full bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. DCIT reported in [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) dated 11.03.2021 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 High Court upheld the view of the division bench order in the case of PCIT Vs. Goa Dourado Promotions (P.) Ltd. (Tax A…

Nidhi Goyal, Haryana vs. DCIT, Hisar

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

ITA 886/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

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

…74 read with section 271(1)(c)of the Act is a defective one. He submitted that the charge has not been specified in the notice, hence referring to various decisions including that of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT 434 ITR 1 (Bom)(FB) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 432 ITR 84 (Del.) & Pr. CIT vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 534 (Delhi), ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that the penalty order is liable to be quashed. 9. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue objected to the above submissions. ITA Nos.884…

C.Vijayalakshmi, Sivakasi vs. DCIT, CC-2, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1599/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Imposing Of Penalty Was Invalid, Because, It Didn'T Specify The Exact Fault On Which The Penalty Is Proposed To Be Levied & Drew Our Attention To Show Cause Notice Issued By The Ao U/S.271(1)(C) R.W.S.274 Of The Act Dated 31.12.2016 For Ay 2012-13, Which We Perused & Will Adjudicate This Legal Issue. 3. As Discussed, The Assessee Has Assailed The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act, Which Penalty Was Imposed By Ao According To Assessee Without Having Jurisdiction. According To Assessee, The Ld.Cit(A) While Passing The Impugned Order Has Not Considered The Fact That The Notice Issued By The Ao Before Imposition Of The Penalty Didn'T Specify The Exact Fault On Which The Penalty Is Proposed To Be Levied I.E. Whether The Assessee Had Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Or Have Concealed The Income & Hence Notice Is Bad In Law, Which Vitiates Levy Of Penalty. 4. In Respect Of The Aforesaid Legal Issue, First Of All We Have Perused The Show Cause Notice (Scn) Issued By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) R.W.S. 274 Of The Act Dated 31.12.2016 For Ay 2012-13 By Virtue Of Which The Ao Gave Notice To The Assessee 'As To Why The Penalty Should Not Be Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Or Not? On Perusal Of Of The The Impugned Scn Dated :: 3 ::

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…cluding the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of Babuji Jacob v. ITO reported in (2021) 430 ITR 259 (Mad). We also note that the Full bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. DCIT reported in [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) dated 11.03.2021 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 High :: 4 :: ITA No.1599/Chny/2024 (AY 2012-13) C. Vijayalakshmi Court upheld the view of the division bench order in the…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik vs. Chakrahar Contractors and Engineers Private Limited, Jalgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1940/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(3)(i)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(9)

…c South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd. v. ACIT [(2022) 443 ITR 186 (Del) (HC)]. 11. Kishor D. Patil v. ITO [ITA Nos.54 & 55/PUNE/2023] dated 30.03.2023. 12. PCIT v. Jehangir H. C. Jehangir [(2023) 155 taxmann.com 209 (Bom HC)]. 13. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. DCIT [434 ITR 1 (Bom)(HC)]. 6.1. He submitted that although the assessee has raised a ground before the Ld. CIT(A) that when profit is estimated, penalty cannot be levied u/sec.270A(9) of the Act, however, the Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the same since he has already deleted the penalty for non-specification of the limb. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble…