“concealment of income”

Shri Rajesh Ramchandra Dake, Panvel vs. Dy CIT CC-1, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 02 & 04/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13) Dcit, Cen. Cir-1, Shri Rajesh 6Th Floor, R. No. 10, A- Ramchandra Dake, बनाम/ B/2, Usha Prabha Chs, Wing, Ashar It Park, Ram Ganesh Gadkari Raoda No. 16-Z, Wagle Vs. Indl. Estate Marg, Prabhu Ali, Thane-400 604 Panvel – 410206, स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Afqpd1100D (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay V. Deshmukh, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 28.12.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 28.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Consolidated Order Of Even Date 19.09.2019, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune In Relation To Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2010-11 & 2012-13. 2

proceeded with the penalty proceedings without making specific averment that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income but both the charges. 4. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that here in this case, AO while issuing notice u/s 274 r.w.s ... appellant, that the penalty proceedings was initiated without making specific averment that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income, and therefore, the levy of penalty is void ab initio, is rejected. He further submitted that such order is contrary to the order

M/S Harshvardhan International, Mumbai vs. Asstt. C.I.T.-20(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Harshavardhan Vs. Acit – 20(1) International Piramal Chambers, 1St Floor, Sunshine Mumbai – 400012. Plaza, Naigaum Cross Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai – 400014. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaefh3134J Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Ms.Mrugakshi K Joshi.Ar Revenue By : Mr.Tejinder Pal Singh Anand.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) – Delhi / Cit(A) U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal:

with respect to the claim made by the Assessee on account of depreciation on land, on the ground that the Assessee has concealed the income. 2. The learned AO failed to take into consideration the bonafide claim and explanation thereto, provided during the assessment proceedings and erred in following ... applied his mind and non striking of charge in the penalty notice i.e. whether the charge is for concealment of income or furnishing of in accurate particulars of income. The Ld.AR demonstrated the copy of penalty notice and M/s. Harshavardhan International, Mumbai. the submissions are realistic. We find the Jurisdictional

Avinash Narayan Sutar, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 28(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the three appeals filed by the asssessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 1029, 1030 & 1031/Mum/2020 (A.Ys: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2010-11) Avinash Narayan Sutar Vs. Ito – 28(1)(2) Plot No. 582, Laxmi Tower No.6, Vashi Niwas, Sector -1, Station, Navi Mumbai- Shiravana, Nerul, Navi 400703. Mumbai – 400706. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arsps9036R Appellant .. Respondent Ito – 28(1)(2) Vs. Avinash Narayan Sutar Tower No.6, Vashi Plot No. 582, Laxmi Station, Navi Mumbai- Niwas, Sector -1, 400703. Shiravana, Nerul, Navi Mumbai – 400706. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arsps9036R Appellant .. Respondent

deposits in the bank account being unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby initiated for concealment of income. 6.The AO has made the addition of undisclosed business receipts of Rs.30lakhs and unexplained cash money ... Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of Act to be initiated simultaneously for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and also for concealment of income. 6.3.2. Further, despite ample opportunities, the assessee could not explain source of cheque deposit of Rs.2,31,55,000/-. In view of this

Shri Rajkumar Nair, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle26(2) (5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed

learned AO in not mentioning in the penalty show cause notice as to whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Appellant prays that the impugned penalty order is bad in law and should be quashed ... inapplicable part. Thus, the Appellant has not been informed whether penalty proceedings were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income. In response the Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the assessment order, dated 16.03.2015 and the penalty order, dated 28.09.2015. 5. We note that

Shri. Poonmaram K. Prajapati, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(2)(5), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Poonam Vs. Ito – 19(2)(5) K.Prajapati Matrumandir, Room 81/83, Room No. 14, 4 No. 210, Tardeo, Kumbharwada, Prabhu Mumbai – 400007. Shri Rammandir Marg, Mumbai – 400004. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agmpp5641C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr. P.M Gang.Ar Respondent By : Mr. B. Bagchi.Dr

from party alleged to be non-genuine. An addition which is made purely on an estimate basis, it cannot be said there is concealment of income. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT for the quantum

Viveck Mathreja, Mumbai vs. ACIT National Faceless Assessment Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalviveck Mathreja Vs. Acit, National Face Less Plot No. 5, Trishul Assessment Centre Hatkesh Co-Op, Hsg.Sty, 2Nd Floor, Kautilya Road No. 6, Jvpd, Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Ville Parle (W), Complex, Bandra Mumbai – 400 056 Mumbai - 400050 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Acxpm8278M Appellant .. Respondent

that the Assessing Officer has issued notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) dated 18.03.2014 without specifying whether the penalty is levied for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In this connection, the ld. Counsel has referred copy of notice u/s 274 r.w.s ... head note is reproduced as under: “Section 271(1)(c), read with section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income (Recording of satisfaction) - Whether where assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or other, or both grounds mentioned in section

Shri Bhanwarlal M. Harsh, Thane vs. Dy CIT CC-3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhshri Bhanwarlal M Shah Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 3(3) A/2, 406, Runwal Plaza, Air India Building Nr. Koresh India Vartak Nariman Point, Nagar, Thane (West) Mumbai - 400021 400606 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacph5666F Appellant .. Respondent

dated 29.03.2017 stated that para 5 of the order that assessee has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealed its income in the original return of income filed, therefore, A.O has levied penalty of Rs.1,64,00,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The assessee filed ... perusal of the aforesaid notice it is clear that A.O has not specified whether the penalty is being levied on account of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, the ld. CIT(A) referred the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case

M/S Cyber Infosystem and Technologies P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Cyber Infosystem Vs. Dcit, Cc-5(3) & Technologies Pvt R.No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Ltd,396, Kamath Air India Bldg, Industrial Estate, Veer Nariman Point, Savarkar Marg, Mumbai – 400021. Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400025. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc2176K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Priyavart Gupta.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Deepika Arora.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Cit(A))- 53, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: M/S Cyber Infosystem & Technologies P Ltd, Mumbai. 1) That, The Notice Issued Under Section 271(1)(C) Read With Section 274 Of The Act & The Order Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Are Illegal, Bad In Law & Without Jurisdiction.

erred in upholding the levy penalty of Rs.53,00,000 under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income on estimated assessed income of Rs.1,68,00,000 being sum of 2% of trading turnover of Rs.64.31 crores and 10% of rent and service charges ... unexplained sources of shareholders funds, unsecured loans, creditors etc. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax..ct for concealment of income is initiated in this case. M/s Cyber Infosystem & Technologies P Ltd, Mumbai. 3. Finally the AO has passed the order u/s 144 of the Act determining

ACIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. Late Shri Trikamji A Chatwani, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, Central Circle – Vs. Late Shri Trikamji A 1(2)Room No. 906, 9Th Chatwani Floor, Annexe Bldg, 6Th Floor, Citi Point, Pratistha Bhavan, Telli Galli, Andheri Church Gate, (E), Mumbai – 400069 Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapc4783G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.H.N.Singh.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Satish Mody.Ar Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

reasons and also the circumstances by letter dated 15.11.2014 referred at Para 6 of the penalty order emphasizing that there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The AO was not satisfied with the compliances and explanations filed by the assessee and applied the provisions ... applied his mind and non striking of charge in the penalty notice i.e. whether the charge is for concealment of income or furnishing of in accurate particulars of income. We find the Jurisdictional Honble High Court of Bombay in Mohd Farhan A Shaikh Vs. DCIT in Tax Appeal