9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act, for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:- "Ground 1- On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 36, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the Leamed CIT(A)") has erred in not considering that the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is void ab initio as its violative of the principle of natural justice. It is, therefore, prayed that the notice be treated as void ab initio and the proceedings be dropped. Tax Effect - Rs.9,56,601/- Without prejudice to the above Ground 1, the Appellant submits the following grounds- Ground 2- On the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... information received from the Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata, proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated in assessee's case. Vide order dated 11/12/2017, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act, the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.33,20,390. 5. Meanwhile, vide notice dated 11/12/2017, issued under section 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty proceedings in assessee's case were initiated. Vide order dated 28/06/2018, passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, a penalty of Rs.9,56,601, was levied. In further appeal against the penalty order, the learned CIT(A), vide impugned order dated 29/11/2019, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the levy of penalty under secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v/s DCIT, [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom.), wherein the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Court has held that the defect in the notice by not striking off the irrelevant matter would vitiate the penalty proceedings. Accordingly, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, we reverse the findings of the lower authorities and quash the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the penalty of Rs.9,56,601, levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As we have quashed the penalty order for this short reason, we see no reason to deal with oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
