9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 791X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pranabesh Sarkar, Mr. Kausheyo Roy, Mr. Samrat Das, Ms. Elina Dey For the Income Tax Authority: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Mr. Amit Sharma For the CGST & CX Authority: Mr. Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee, Mr. A. Maity JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.) 1. This intra-Court appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the order dated 19th December, 2022 in W.P.A. No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved on the assessee and no notice under Section 271 (1)(c) was served on the assesssee and as the assessment order has not been served, the imposition of penalty under Section 271(i)(c) is wrong. 2. When the appeal came up earlier, the department was directed to file their affidavit-in-opposition so that the factual position can be clarified. If it is established that the assessee has not been se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate the further steps taken and in sub- paragraph (e) it is stated that notice under Section 148 was issued by ITO, Ward 5(2), Kolkata on 31st March, 2016 and the service of the said notice was made by affixation by departmental inspector on 31st March, 2016 at the address 37, Abani Dutt Road, 1st Floor, Howrah - 711106. Thus, it is evident that despite the department being aware of the change of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... days there from and there after, after affording an opportunity to the assessee, the ITO is directed to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law. 4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the department had submitted that the penalty demand notice was served through e-mail on 23rd June, 2017 as well as the earlier notice. The fact remains that the department is aware of the chang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
