TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1035X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nciple as enunciated herein above which has also the mandate of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court. Needless to add, assessee should be provided an opportunity of being heard. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 1670/Del./2018 - - - Dated:- 22-6-2023 - Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member And Shri Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT DR ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT (A)-14, New Delhi dated 15.12.2017 pertaining to the AY 2011-12 confirming the order passed by the Assessing Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. He submitted that in such a situation, the penalty levied is void ab initio . The submission of the ld. Counsel of the assessee in a summarized manner is as under :- Additional ground has been moved in respect of vague and non-specific penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c). In this case, penalty notice issued is non-specific and inapplicable clause has not been struck off. PB 262 is penalty notice dated 28.03.2013 showing both the charges i.e concealed the particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Page 12-13 of assessment order show that satisfaction for initiating penalty was recorded for both the charges i.e. concealed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Infrastructure Ltd., ITA No. 5240/2017 dated 22.02.2022 (Del). (CLC Pages 100-107) Dr. Ajith Kumar Pandey vs. ITAT, (2009) 310 ITR 0195 (Patna). (CLC Pages 108-111) Zile Singh Kashyap vs. ITO, ITA No.431/2020 dated 06.04.2023 (Del). (CLC Pages 112-116) 6. Per contra, ld. DR for the Revenue summarized his submissions as under :- A. Bombay High Court (Full Bench!. Farhan A. Shaikh in ITA No. 51 57 of 2012 dated 11.03.2021 Does Not Address: P.R. Mukherjee, Calcutta High Court 30 ITR 535 as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Kantamani Venkata Narayana-1967 AIR 587,1967 SCR(l) 1984. B. Does not address the Jurisdictional fact of satisfaction , As evident from the Assessment Order not to be discerned from contents of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alidity of the exercise of power is predicated -M.A. Rasheed vs. State of Kerala. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions of both the sides and perused the records. We note that ld. CIT DR has placed reliance upon the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Courts while ld. Counsel of the assessee has referred the decisions of Hon ble Apex Court and Hon ble jurisdictional High Court. We may gainfully refer to Hon ble jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. Ors. (2021) 432 ITR 0084 (Del.). The exposition of Hon ble High Court in this regard is as under :- 21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act, whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
