TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e are allowed. - ITA No. 36/DEL/2021 - - - Dated:- 31-10-2022 - SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT , JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by : Sh. Abhinay Gupta , CA Respondent by : Sh. Jeetender Chand , Sr. DR ORDER PER KUL BHARAT , JM : This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-32, New Delhi, dated 23.01.2020, pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. Ground No. 1 1.1 On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the penalty order passed by the learned AO. 2. Ground No. 2 2.1 On the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e this Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for the assessee at the outset pointed out that the penalty imposed by the Assessing Authority is bad in law on account of the fact that the penalty notices dated 1.3.2013, 31.12.2015 and 5.2.2016 are contrary to the ratio laid down by the judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2019) (ITA 475 of 2019). Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA S Emerald Meadows (73 Taxmann.com 248). He submitted that under the identical facts the Tribunal following the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) has also deleted the penalty. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unity of being heard in person or through authorised representative you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before any such order is made under section 271(1)(c) Sd/- Assessing Officer 6. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) has held as under: 21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar) and observed that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1) (c) the penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
