“furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”

S.F.Dyes /Firm, Mumbai vs. A.C.Circle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2013-14 S.F. Dyes/Firm A.C. Circle 17(1), First Floor, Hague Building, 9 Sprott Bandra Kurla Complex Road ,Ballard Estate, Vs. Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400001. Pan No. Aacfs 5153 J Appellant Respondent

disallowed u/s.35(1)ii) to the tune of Rs.35,00,000/-; and penalty proceedings us.271(1)c) were initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The taxpayer preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) which was later withdrawn by the assessee and thereby the assessment order was confirmed ... payment, produced the receipts of Rs. 20 lakhs, letter of confirmation regarding receipts of donation so its case was not that of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It has relied on various case laws in support of its stand. It also claimed that as it had suo motto sought rectification

Dy CIT (It)3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kingfisher Capital Clo Ltd., Mumbai

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

contentions raised by the assessee the Assessing Officer (AO) proceeded to conclude that the assessee has deliberately concealed the income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to reduce their tax liability and thereby levied the penalty to the tune of Rs.91,19,56,419/- being 100% of the tax sought

ACIT - 17(1), Mumbai vs. Bajranglal Bhikaram Mittal, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 2482, 2483 & 2484/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2011-12, 2010-11 & 2009-10) Acit-17(1) Vs. Bajranglal Bhikaram Room No. 117, Mittal, 1St Floor, G-Block, 310, Gokul Building, Kautiliya Bhavan, Iron Market, Masjid Bandra Kurla Complex Bunder, Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400009. Pan/Gir No. : Afgpm0969R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Love Kumar.Dr Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing 28.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act.

cannot be levied on such adhoc estimated income. The disallowance of purchases on ad-hoc/estimated basis does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under the provisions of Section ITA No. 2482/2483/2484/Mum/2021 Bajranglal Bhikaram Mittal, Mumbai. 271(1) (c) of the Act. The A.O. has not doubted

Siddque Ahmed Abbasali Chodhary, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 21(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed”

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Siddique Ahmed Abbasali Chowdhary, Ito Wd 21(3)(2), A-3, Yari D’Souza Nagar Chs Ltd., 90 Bandra Kurla Complex, Feet Road, Sakinaka, Vs. Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Anlpk 3359 A Appellant Respondent

short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2009-10, wherein he has upheld the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Siddique Ahmed Abbasali Chowdhary 2 2. At the outset, we may like to mention that when the appeal was called for, neither anyone

Omprakash G. Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 18(2) (4), Mumbai

penalty proceedings have been initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. 3. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee, the AO proceeded to levy penalty to the tune of Rs.14 ... point of time Revenue Authorities have reached the specific conclusion that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income rather made the addition and levied consequent penalty on the basis of information received from Sales Tax Department as to the alleged bogus purchases

Income Tax Officer WD -3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Navjivan Engineering Works, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanita Nos. 58 & 59/Mum/2022 (A.Ys: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ito, Ward 3(2) M/S Navjeevan 2Ndfloor,Ranimansion, Engineering Works Murbad, Road, D-18, Midc, Phase-Ii Kalyan(W)-42131 Manpada Road, Maharashtra Dombivali (E) Maharashtra – 421204 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabfn2813K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Love Kumar.Dr Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeals Centre (Nfac) Delhi Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act.

cannot be levied on such adhoc estimated income. The disallowance of purchases on ad-hoc basis does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under the provisions of Section 271(1) (c) of the ITA No. 58 & 59/Mum/2022 M/s Navjeevan Engineering Works, Mumbai. Act. The A.O. has not doubted

Twinkle Enviro Tech Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 2 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Twinkle Enviro- Tech Vs. Dcit, Circle 2(1) Pvt Ltd. Old Cgo Annexe 317/318, Parvati Bldg, Mumbai – Industrial Estate, Sun 400020. Mill Compound, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 400013. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact4038N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Mr.Vinay Sinha.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-48 Passed U/S 143(3) & 250. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1 )(c) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Similarly the A.O has made disallowance u/s 14A of the Act applying the Rule 8D(2) and determined the total income

DCIT 4 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. Skf India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

penalty is justifiable specifically in the circumstances, when there is no concealment of income nor any furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee disclosed all the material facts before the AO. The adoption of specific method of accounting adopted by the assessee leads nowhere imposition of penalty, hence

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

penalty can be levied on the existence of any of the two situations, namely, for concealing the particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, it is obvious from the phraseology of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act that the imposition of penalty is invited only ... case of Lakhdir Lalji (supra), the AO issued notice u/s 274 for concealment of particulars of income but levied penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court quashed the penalty since the basis for the penalty proceedings disappeared when it was held that there

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.

Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject it has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income and /or concealed any particulars of its income and hence no penalty whatsoever can be levied ... assessee and to make a huge addition to the total income of the assessee. It was held that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealed its income of Rs.7.68 crores. Subsequently, the AO issued the penalty notice and after the reply of the Assessee, levied the penalty

M/S. Rinira Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD.11(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Rinira Technologies Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 11(1)(2) Room No. 202, 2Nd Floor 110, Shiv Ashish, 66-S.V. Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Andheri (W), Mumbai - 40058 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcr7702C (Appellant) (Respondent)

proper in which Assessing Officer has not highlighted on which ground the penalty was initiated, whether on furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. Further he brought to our notice finding of the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order in Para No 14 in which Assessing Officer ... indicated that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and accordingly, penalty proceedings will be initiated separately. On the other hand, Ld. AR brought to our notice penalty order dated 23.02.2016 in which the penalty was levied for concealment of income. Therefore, he submitted that the Assessing Officer

Monika Anand Gupta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2), Kalyan

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Issuing The Same Were Baseless & As Such, The Reassessment Proceedings In Pursuance Thereof Is Vitiated. 2) The Ld. Cit (A) Also Failed To Consider That The Impugned Order Is Passed Mechanically By The Ld. Assessing Officer Without Affording An Opportunity To The Appellant To Defend Her Case & As Such, The Same Is Liable To Be Annulled On Account Of Non Application Of Mind & Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice. 3) The Ld. Cit (A) Also Failed To Consider That The Appellant Was Never Given Any Opportunity To Cross-Examine The Person Who Made The Statement Against The Appellant, Much Less, The Alleged Material Was Never Provided To Her & As Such, The Same Is Violation Of Principle Of Natural Justice. 4) The Ld. Cit (A) Lost Sight Of The Fact That Any Statement Made By & Person U/S. 132 [4] Cannot Be Used Against Any Third Person & Therefore

added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) are separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of Income.” 4. Upon assessee’s appeal learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 5. Against the above order assessee is in appeal before ITAT. 6. I have

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

second notice as well both limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act i.e concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income are mentioned. 6. In the instant case, we find that in the first place the Assessing Officer has not recorded his satisfaction for levy ... record satisfaction in an unambiguous manner that the penalty proceedings 4 are being initiated separately for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, as the case may be. In the present case, the absence of such satisfaction in the assessment order is conspicuous. In the absence of satisfaction

The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

added back to the income of the assessee. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1) (c) of the LT. Act, 1961 is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4.9 The assessee filed objection before the DRP against the draft order passed on 29.12.2017. The DRP-2(W2Z) in his direction passed ... total income of the assessee. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act, 1961 is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 5. Since the said issue has already been considered by DRP as well as AO, therefore, the said issue is not liable to be revised

DCIT(It)-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Clsa Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee for both the A

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant (Accoutant Member)

established the fact that income as FTS was knowingly and willfully misclassifIed as reimbursement of expenses thereby holding assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income? 3. The Appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A} on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer ... established the fact that income as FTS was knowingly and willfully misclassifIed as reimbursement of expenses thereby holding assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income? 3. The Appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A} on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer

ITO -32(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Brijesh Raithatha, Mumbai

In the result , we dismiss both the appeal of the assessee as well of Revenue

added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of income.”(Emphasis supplied) ITA. No. 100/M/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 7. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before

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

vague as it states that “Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are initiated separately for concealing and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. ITA. No. 5828/Mum/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 9. Same is the case with the penalty order, dated 23.06.2017, passed under Section

Afcons Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1){c) of the Act are hereby initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income / concealment of particulars of income.” 29. Moreover, it is brought on record by the assessee that on identical issue order passed by the Ld. PCIT

Shri Bharat Mahesh Malhotra, Mumabi vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Thane

Appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

year. In our considered opinion, these facts do not lead to a conclusion that assessee is guilty of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Moreover, though we are not sitting in the merits of the case, it is settled law as declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court