TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... came to the conclusion that unless the charge against the assessee was specific, the same could not be maintained. Applying this ratio, the Tribunal, in our opinion, has correctly deleted the penalty of for the self same reason that no details of any charge were provided to the assessee in the impugned notice. For this technical reason, the order of the Tribunal has to be upheld. We admit the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We are shown one judgment of the Supreme Court in Amrit Foods Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, U.P. reported in (2005) 13 SCC 419. One particular paragraph of this judgment is of great importance to us in this case and which reads as follows:- 5. The Revenue has preferred an appeal from the order of the Tribunal setting aside the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment of our Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-19, Kolkata Versus Dr. Murari Mohan Koley, ITAT No. 306 of 2017 (so far unreported) decided on 18th July, 2018. Relying on a judgment of the Tribunal made on 5th April, 2017 which in turn relied upon judgments of the Karnataka and Bombay High Courts it came to the conclusion that unless the charge against the assessee was specific, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
