DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

penalty notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the same date clearly brings out a confusion on the part of the Assessing Officer, and apparently it is a situation where assessee is not aware about the clear and crystallised charge being made against him, thus violating the principles of natural justice

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

penalty notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the same date clearly brings out a confusion on the part of the Assessing Officer, and apparently it is a situation where assessee is not aware about the clear and crystallised charge being made against him, thus violating the principles of natural justice

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

penalty notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the same date clearly brings out a confusion on the part of the Assessing Officer, and apparently it is a situation where assessee is not aware about the clear and crystallised charge being made against him, thus violating the principles of natural justice

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

penalty notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the same date clearly brings out a confusion on the part of the Assessing Officer, and apparently it is a situation where assessee is not aware about the clear and crystallised charge being made against him, thus violating the principles of natural justice

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

penalty notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the same date clearly brings out a confusion on the part of the Assessing Officer, and apparently it is a situation where assessee is not aware about the clear and crystallised charge being made against him, thus violating the principles of natural justice

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

penalty notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the same date clearly brings out a confusion on the part of the Assessing Officer, and apparently it is a situation where assessee is not aware about the clear and crystallised charge being made against him, thus violating the principles of natural justice

ELENJICKAMALIL V. THOMAS,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआमकय अऩीर सं/.I.T.A. No.2647/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : (2009-10) बिाम / Elenjickamalil V. Thomas Dcit 22(3) 212, Vardhaman Chambers, Mumbai Sector-17, Vashi, V. Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थामी रेखा सं/.Pan: Aacpe7339L (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on legal grounds. However , arguments were advanced by both the parties on legal ground. Thus, keeping in view the relevance and importance of the challenge on legal grounds as to defect in notice u/s 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the 1961 Act which goes to the root of the matter , we have

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

natural justice be quashed.”\nAY 2011-12\n“GROUND NO. 1: LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(c) OF RS. 46,527/-\nPage

MAHESH M. GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 20(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2976/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Shri Mahesh M. Gandhi, Asst. Commissioner Of बनाम/ 303/304, Sholay Income Tax – 20(2), V. Apartments, Mumbai. Raheja Complex, Seven Bungalows, Versova, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 061. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpg3545P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. (s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb is bad in law. (t) The penalty proceedings are distinct from the assessment proceedings. The proceedings for imposition of penalty though emanate from proceedings

ILA JITENDRA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2014-15

natural justice. However, it is seen from the penalty order that the AO has issued notices to the appellant and in response to the same the appellant furnished the written submission. Hence the contention of the appellant is factually incorrect. Further during the appeal proceedings also adequate opportunities were provided however the same are not availed. The contention

EON AVIATION PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

u/s 274 of the Act should specifically state the ground mentioned in section 271(l)(c), i.e. whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. Initiating the penalty

KARL PESTONJI KERAWALLA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 11(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blekarl Pestonji Kerawalla V. I.T.O. – 11(2)(4) Kerawalla Chamber (4Th Floor) Aayakar Bhavan, 25, P.J. Ramchandani Marg., M.K. Road, Colaba, Mumbai – 400 039 Mumbai-400 020

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are to be initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of even date, both the limbs of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act are reproduced in the proforma notice and the irrelevant clause

SUCCESS DEVELOPERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 10, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5608/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

nature of offence for which the penalty was initiated. In this respect, we have heard the counsels for both the parties and we find that no such ground was ever raised by the assessee in reply to the show cause noticed dated 28.03.13 issued by the revenue and moreover, in the order passed u/s 271

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTERAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

natural justice be quashed.”\nAY 2011-12\n“GROUND NO. 1: LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(c) OF RS. 46,527/-\n(a) The Id. CIT(A) erred

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTERAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

natural justice be quashed.”\nAY 2011-12\n“GROUND NO. 1: LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(c) OF RS. 46,527/-\nCOME

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

natural justice be quashed.”\nAY 2011-12\n“GROUND NO. 1: LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(c) OF RS. 46,527/-\nPage

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

natural justice be quashed.”\nAY 2011-12\n“GROUND NO. 1: LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(c) OF RS. 46,527/-\nPage

ORBIT ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is a legal infirmity, which is fatal to the imposition of penalty because in the absence of specifying the ground on which penalty is initiated, there is a violation of principles of natural justice