SHRI GUFRAN AHMED CHAUDHARI,,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-1,, VAPI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that penalty levied for both concealment as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is double mind of the Assessing Officer. The Ld Counsel referred to the decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samson Perinchery, 88 taxmann.com 413 and the decision

SHRI PRAKASH F.SINGH,,VAPI vs. THE ITO, WARD-7,, VAPI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that penalty levied for both concealment as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is double mind of the Assessing Officer. The Ld Counsel referred to the decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samson Perinchery, 88 taxmann.com 413 and the decision

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 11.1 Following the above decision, the ITAT deleted similar penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) in case of Sanjay Kumar Chaudhary (HUF) (supra). The relevant para is reproduced below for ready reference: “8. I note that penalty on estimation addition should not be levied and this issue is no longer res integra

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 11.1 Following the above decision, the ITAT deleted similar penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) in case of Sanjay Kumar Chaudhary (HUF) (supra). The relevant para is reproduced below for ready reference: “8. I note that penalty on estimation addition should not be levied and this issue is no longer res integra

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 11.1 Following the above decision, the ITAT deleted similar penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) in case of Sanjay Kumar Chaudhary (HUF) (supra). The relevant para is reproduced below for ready reference: “8. I note that penalty on estimation addition should not be levied and this issue is no longer res integra

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 11.1 Following the above decision, the ITAT deleted similar penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) in case of Sanjay Kumar Chaudhary (HUF) (supra). The relevant para is reproduced below for ready reference: “8. I note that penalty on estimation addition should not be levied and this issue is no longer res integra

PINKY MANISHKUMAR JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.280 To 282/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2009-10) (Physical Hearing) Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/1710, Nawabwadi, Begampura, Ward – 2(2)(3), Surat – 395003. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahnpj7591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, therefore, I dismiss ground No.3 raised by the assessee in quantum appeal. 7. Succinct facts qua ground No.2 of the assessee`s appeal, are that assessee before me is an Individual. The assessee has not filed her Return of income for the assessment year 2009-10. In assessee`s case

PINKY MANISHKUMAR JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.280 To 282/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2009-10) (Physical Hearing) Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/1710, Nawabwadi, Begampura, Ward – 2(2)(3), Surat – 395003. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahnpj7591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, therefore, I dismiss ground No.3 raised by the assessee in quantum appeal. 7. Succinct facts qua ground No.2 of the assessee`s appeal, are that assessee before me is an Individual. The assessee has not filed her Return of income for the assessment year 2009-10. In assessee`s case

PINKY MANISHKUMAR JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.280 To 282/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2009-10) (Physical Hearing) Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/1710, Nawabwadi, Begampura, Ward – 2(2)(3), Surat – 395003. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahnpj7591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, therefore, I dismiss ground No.3 raised by the assessee in quantum appeal. 7. Succinct facts qua ground No.2 of the assessee`s appeal, are that assessee before me is an Individual. The assessee has not filed her Return of income for the assessment year 2009-10. In assessee`s case

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

16,610/- and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of particulars of income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, SILVASSA WARD , SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

16,610/- and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of particulars of income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s

VIKAS AGARWAL,SILVASSA vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

16,610/- and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of particulars of income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA , SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

16,610/- and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of particulars of income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

16,610/- and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of particulars of income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO,WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

16,610/- and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of particulars of income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

16,610/- and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of particulars of income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

16,610/- and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of particulars of income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s

SHRI VIJAY CHAMPAK PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.281/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vijay Champak Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pachhlu Faliyu, Near Water Ward-6(4), Surat Tank, Bharthana, Vesu, Surat

section 54F of the Act. As such, the deduction of Rs.52,04,000/- claimed by the assessee u/s 54F is disallowed and added to the total income of 3 Vijay Champak Patel Assessment Year: 2011-12 the assessee. By claiming incorrect deduction, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income, for which, penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w.s

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. MILESTONE CONSTRUCTION,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

penalty is return of income. If any amount 15. has been shown in the return of income, then it cannot be said that assessee has concealed any particular about that income or furnished inaccurate particulars in relation thereto. There cannot be any concealment prior to filing of return. Question of consideration whether assessee is liable for action under section 271