“furnishing inaccurate particulars 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 ... While initiating penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s.271(1)(c), the AO recorded his satisfaction that the penalty was initiated for 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income'. Thus, clearly, the AO has mentioned the two different limbs of sec. 271(l)(c) for the two additions he made in the assessment order

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

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed

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. 2. Without prejudice to Ground ... confirming penalty levied amounting to Rs. 1,70,025/- without appreciating that the Appellant had neither concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income.‖ 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act was framed

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

levied. The disallowance of purchases on ad-hoc/estimated basis does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under the provisions of Section 271(1) (c) of the Act. The A.O. has not doubted the sales and made disallowance of bogus purchases and we rely on the ratio

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

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 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act dated

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

fact that the learned AO had failed to arrive at a satisfaction as whether penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, resulting in the whole penalty proceeding void ab initio 5. Your appellant craves leave to allow to add/alter/amend/withdraw any ground of appeal.” 2. There ... vide order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act 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

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:

does not mention whether the penalty is levied for Late Shri, Trikamji, A Chatwani., Mumbai. concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Ld. AR has filed the submissions and demonstrated the copy of Notice. Further the Ld.AR also made submissions challenging the validity of notice