Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’ble
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA {VIRTUAL COURT HEARING} (Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’ble Judicial Member & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’ble Accountant Member) ITA No. 2374/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & ITA No. 2375/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15
M/s. Vijayshree Autocom Ltd.....................................................................………………….............Appellant Continental Chambers 15A, Hemant Basu Sarani Kolkata - 700001 [PAN : AADCV1952C] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata........……..….........Respondent
Appearances by: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R, appearing on behalf of the Revenue.
Date of concluding the hearing : February 23rd, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : March 28, 2022
ORDER Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:-
Both these appeals are filed by the assessee against the identical orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata, dt. 27th August, 2018, confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. For the sake of convenience we are taking up assessment year 2013-14 first.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal for the Assessment Year 2013-14:- “1. That the order passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) - 21, Kolkata, u/s 250 confirming the additions and disallowances made by learned assessing officer is contrary to the law and facts of the case. 2. That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A) 21, Kolkata erred in law as well as on facts of the case by not deleted the penalty-imposed u/s 271AAB on the ground the ld. Assessing Officer has failed to specify in the penalty notice u/s 271AAB r/w 274 that as to violation for which limb of section 271AAB, penalty proceedings have been initiated.
That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A) 21, Kolkata erred in law as well as on facts of the case by confirming the penalty levied u/s 271AAB being 10% of total income declared by the appellant in its disclosure petition.
ITA No. 2374/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & ITA No. 2375/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Vijayshree Autocom Ltd. M/s. Vijayshree Autocom Ltd 4. That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A) 21, Kolkata erred in law as well as That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A) 21, Kolkata erred in law as well as That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A) 21, Kolkata erred in law as well as on facts of the case by not deleting the penalty levied u/s on facts of the case by not deleting the penalty levied u/s 271 AAB in toto on the ground that 271 AAB in toto on the ground that appellant had time to finalize the accounts of the relevant period and record the income found appellant had time to finalize the accounts of the relevant period and record the income found appellant had time to finalize the accounts of the relevant period and record the income found unrecorded at the time of search proceedings and the so called undisclosed income was unrecorded at the time of search proceedings and the so called undisclosed income was unrecorded at the time of search proceedings and the so called undisclosed income was admitted in the disclosure petition for admitted in the disclosure petition for the purpose of buying peace and avoid the purpose of buying peace and avoid unnecessary litigation .
That the appellant craves leave to add/or amend any ground of this appeal. e appellant craves leave to add/or amend any ground of this appeal. e appellant craves leave to add/or amend any ground of this appeal.”
As the grounds raised for the Assessment Year 2014 As the grounds raised for the Assessment Year 2014-15 are identical we do not 15 are identical we do not extract the same for the sake of brevity. sake of brevity. 4. In Ground Nos. 1 & 2, the assessee challenges the penalty notice issued u/s In Ground Nos. 1 & 2, the assessee challenges the penalty notice issued u/s In Ground Nos. 1 & 2, the assessee challenges the penalty notice issued u/s 271AAB r.w.s. 274 of the Act as being invalid and 271AAB r.w.s. 274 of the Act as being invalid and void ab initio on the ground that, the on the ground that, the Assessing Officer has failed to specifically point out the Assessing Officer has failed to specifically point out the clause on which the penalty was ich the penalty was proposed to be levied.
Facts in brief are that a search action u/s 132( Facts in brief are that a search action u/s 132(1) of the Act was conducted on ) of the Act was conducted on 11/04/2013 on the assessee. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing 11/04/2013 on the assessee. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing 11/04/2013 on the assessee. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of automobile components, tea, engineering, m of automobile components, tea, engineering, marketing services, equity & commodities arketing services, equity & commodities broking and trading etc. During the course of assessment proceedings, a statement During the course of assessment proceedings, a statement During the course of assessment proceedings, a statement u/s 132(4) of the Act was recorded 132(4) of the Act was recorded of the director of the assessee company Shri Devendra the director of the assessee company Shri Devendra Kumar Mantri who disclosed Kumar Mantri who disclosed and offered unaccounted income to the tune of ounted income to the tune of Rs.5,09,58,950/- in the hands of the assessee company under the head “commodity in the hands of the assessee company under the head “commodity in the hands of the assessee company under the head “commodity speculation income” and “income from other sources” and accordingly filed the return of speculation income” and “income from other sources” and accordingly filed the return of speculation income” and “income from other sources” and accordingly filed the return of income u/s 153A of the Act income u/s 153A of the Act . The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of /s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act on 30/03/0216 and the amount of Rs.5,09,58,950/ the Act on 30/03/0216 and the amount of Rs.5,09,58,950/- was treated as undisclosed was treated as undisclosed income. Penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act was initiated income. Penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act was initiated on the undisclosed income undisclosed income admitted during the course of search at the time of the course of search at the time of recording of statement u/s 132(4) of recording of statement u/s 132(4) of the Act and accordingly notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271AAB of the Act was served on the the Act and accordingly notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271AAB of the Act was served on the the Act and accordingly notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271AAB of the Act was served on the assessee on 31/03/2016. The said show cause notice was replied by the assessee The said show cause notice was replied by the assessee The said show cause notice was replied by the assessee .Finally after considering the submission Finally after considering the submissions of the assessee in response to that notice in response to that notice, the Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs.1,52,87,685/ Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs.1,52,87,685/- being 30% on on the amount of
ITA No. 2374/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & ITA No. 2375/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Vijayshree Autocom Ltd. M/s. Vijayshree Autocom Ltd Rs.5,09,58,950/- surrendered during the course of search as undisclosed income vide surrendered during the course of search as undisclosed income vide surrendered during the course of search as undisclosed income vide order dt. 28/09/2016 passed u/s 271AAB of the Act. order dt. 28/09/2016 passed u/s 271AAB of the Act.
The matter was carried to the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the he matter was carried to the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the he matter was carried to the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by restricting the amount of penalty to 10% as against the appeal of the assessee by restricting the amount of penalty to 10% as against the appeal of the assessee by restricting the amount of penalty to 10% as against the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer at 30% of the undisclosed amount by penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer at 30% of the undisclosed amount by penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer at 30% of the undisclosed amount by observing and holding as under: ng as under:- “12. In view of the above provisions the appellant was required to satisfy the 12. In view of the above provisions the appellant was required to satisfy the 12. In view of the above provisions the appellant was required to satisfy the following conditions so as to ensure that minimum penalty @ 10% is levied under conditions so as to ensure that minimum penalty @ 10% is levied under conditions so as to ensure that minimum penalty @ 10% is levied under Section 271AAB of the Act. 271AAB of the Act. (a) Assessee must have admitted the undisclosed income (a) Assessee must have admitted the undisclosed income in statement in statement recorded u/s 132(4); (b) Assessee specifies & substantiates the manner in which such undisclosed (b) Assessee specifies & substantiates the manner in which such undisclosed (b) Assessee specifies & substantiates the manner in which such undisclosed income was derived (c) Pays Tax & Interest on such undisclosed income before the specified (c) Pays Tax & Interest on such undisclosed income before the specified (c) Pays Tax & Interest on such undisclosed income before the specified date; (d) Files the ROI for specified previous year (d) Files the ROI for specified previous year declaring such undisclosed declaring such undisclosed income therein
In the facts of the present case search operations were conducted on 11.04.2013 13. In the facts of the present case search operations were conducted on 11.04.2013 13. In the facts of the present case search operations were conducted on 11.04.2013 and the Director of the appellant in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) on and the Director of the appellant in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) on and the Director of the appellant in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) on 12.04.2013 had admitted the undisclosed income during c 12.04.2013 had admitted the undisclosed income during course of search and ourse of search and survey operation. This fact also been admitted by the Ld. AO in the assessment survey operation. This fact also been admitted by the Ld. AO in the assessment survey operation. This fact also been admitted by the Ld. AO in the assessment as well as the impugned penalty order. Accordingly condition (a) is satisfied. It is well as the impugned penalty order. Accordingly condition (a) is satisfied. It is well as the impugned penalty order. Accordingly condition (a) is satisfied. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has discharged taxes along with i not in dispute that the appellant has discharged taxes along with i not in dispute that the appellant has discharged taxes along with interest before the specified date and that such income was disclosed in the return of the specified date and that such income was disclosed in the return of the specified date and that such income was disclosed in the return of income filed for the relevant year. In the circumstances even clause (c) & (d) for the relevant year. In the circumstances even clause (c) & (d) for the relevant year. In the circumstances even clause (c) & (d) stands satisfied. The only dispute between the appellant and the Ld. AO is The only dispute between the appellant and the Ld. AO is regarding clause (b) as according to Ld. AO the appellant did not specify the (b) as according to Ld. AO the appellant did not specify the (b) as according to Ld. AO the appellant did not specify the manner in which such income was derived. I however find that allegation of the manner in which such income was derived. I however find that allegation of the manner in which such income was derived. I however find that allegation of the Ld. AO to be self-contradictory. By AO's own admission in the assessment order contradictory. By AO's own admission in the assessment order contradictory. By AO's own admission in the assessment order as well as the penalty order, the en as the penalty order, the entries in the loose documents denoted the tries in the loose documents denoted the speculative income derived by the appellant in commodity dealings. The Ld. AR of income derived by the appellant in commodity dealings. The Ld. AR of income derived by the appellant in commodity dealings. The Ld. AR of the appellant has further demonstrated that the Ld. AO never required the has further demonstrated that the Ld. AO never required the appellant to explain appellant to explain the manner of deriving such income in t the manner of deriving such income in the assessment or the penalty proceedings penalty proceedings which further proved that the Ld. AO was satisfied that the which further proved that the Ld. AO was satisfied that the income was derived income was derived from commodity dealings. On these facts & circumstances, I from commodity dealings. On these facts & circumstances, I am of the considered am of the considered view that the manner in which the income was derived view that the manner in which the income was derived stood evidently specified as od evidently specified as well as substantiated. I therefore do not see any well as substantiated. I therefore do not see any reason for the Ld. AO to allege that reason for the Ld. AO to allege that the appellant had failed to specify & the appellant had failed to specify & substantiate the manner of deriving such substantiate the manner of deriving such income. For the reasons as aforesaid, I income. For the reasons as aforesaid, I am of the considered view that the clause (b) w that the clause (b) also stood satisfied and in that view also stood satisfied and in that view of the matter appellant had fulfilled all the of the matter appellant had fulfilled all the conditions to fall within clause (a) of conditions to fall within clause (a) of Section 271AAB of the Act. The Ld. AO is Section 271AAB of the Act. The Ld. AO is
ITA No. 2374/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & ITA No. 2375/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Vijayshree Autocom Ltd. M/s. Vijayshree Autocom Ltd therefore directed to restrict the penalty therefore directed to restrict the penalty u/s 271AAB to 10% of the u u/s 271AAB to 10% of the undisclosed income, which works out to income, which works out to Rs.50,95,895/-. The balance amount of Rs.1,01,91,790/ . The balance amount of Rs.1,01,91,790/- is therefore deleted. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is "partly allowed". In the result, the appeal of the appellant is "partly allowed". In the result, the appeal of the appellant is "partly allowed".
After hearing the rival parties and perusing the material available on record After hearing the rival parties and perusing the material available on record After hearing the rival parties and perusing the material available on record including the notice issued u/s 271AAB r.w.s. 274 of the Act dt. 31/03/2016, we find including the notice issued u/s 271AAB r.w.s. 274 of the Act dt. 31/03/2016, we find including the notice issued u/s 271AAB r.w.s. 274 of the Act dt. 31/03/2016, we find that the notice has been issue in a mechanical manner without specifying one of the that the notice has been issue in a mechanical manner without specifying one of the that the notice has been issue in a mechanical manner without specifying one of the three clauses under which the penalty was proposed to be levied. uses under which the penalty was proposed to be levied. The ld. A/R before us The ld. A/R before us challenged the very initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB as invalid and the very initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB as invalid and the very initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB as invalid and void ab initio on the ground that the initiation is itself by an invalid notice issued by the on the ground that the initiation is itself by an invalid notice issued by the on the ground that the initiation is itself by an invalid notice issued by the Assessing Officer. The ld. A/R submitted that the issuing a mechanical notice without ssing Officer. The ld. A/R submitted that the issuing a mechanical notice without ssing Officer. The ld. A/R submitted that the issuing a mechanical notice without application of mind is a substantive and patent error of law which goes to the root of the application of mind is a substantive and patent error of law which goes to the root of the application of mind is a substantive and patent error of law which goes to the root of the matter and is not curable at a later stage. The ld. A/R, therefore, prayed that th matter and is not curable at a later stage. The ld. A/R, therefore, prayed that th matter and is not curable at a later stage. The ld. A/R, therefore, prayed that the order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty deduction to the extent of 10% may kindly be set the ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty deduction to the extent of 10% may kindly be set the ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty deduction to the extent of 10% may kindly be set aside and the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271AAB may kindly be aside and the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271AAB may kindly be aside and the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271AAB may kindly be quashed as the very foundation is suffering from vices quashed as the very foundation is suffering from vices invalid notice. The ld. A/R in defense of his arguments relied heavily on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High relied heavily on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High relied heavily on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case PCIT vs. Shri R. Elangovan in Tax Case Appeal Nos. 770 & 771 and CMP PCIT vs. Shri R. Elangovan in Tax Case Appeal Nos. 770 & 771 and CMP PCIT vs. Shri R. Elangovan in Tax Case Appeal Nos. 770 & 771 and CMP No. 18581 of 2018 dt. 30/03/2021 No. 18581 of 2018 dt. 30/03/2021. The ld. D/R on the other hand, relied The ld. D/R on the other hand, relied heavily on the order of the ld. CIT(A) by stating that the provision order of the ld. CIT(A) by stating that the provisions of Section 271(1) of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are quite different from provisions of Section 271AAB as the two penal sections deal with quite different from provisions of Section 271AAB as the two penal sections deal with quite different from provisions of Section 271AAB as the two penal sections deal with distinct and different issues altogether. The ld. D/R submitted before us that the distinct and different issues altogether. The ld. D/R submitted before us that the distinct and different issues altogether. The ld. D/R submitted before us that the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act deals with the imposition of provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act deals with the imposition of provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act deals with the imposition of penalty on the particular charge whereas the provisions u/s 271AAB deal with the quantum of charge whereas the provisions u/s 271AAB deal with the quantum of charge whereas the provisions u/s 271AAB deal with the quantum of penalty. The ld. D/R, therefore, submitted that the order of the ld. CIT(A) may kindly be . The ld. D/R, therefore, submitted that the order of the ld. CIT(A) may kindly be . The ld. D/R, therefore, submitted that the order of the ld. CIT(A) may kindly be sustained.
We have perused the decision cited before us in the case We have perused the decision cited before us in the case of of PCIT vs. Shri R. Elangovan (supra ) and find that under similar facts the Hon’ble court has quashed the ) and find that under similar facts the Hon’ble court has quashed the ) and find that under similar facts the Hon’ble court has quashed the penalty order on the ground that it is based upon invalid penalty notice issued u/s penalty order on the ground that it is based upon invalid penalty notice issued u/s penalty order on the ground that it is based upon invalid penalty notice issued u/s 271AAB of the Act. The operative part is extracted below: 271AAB of the Act. The operative part is extracted below:
ITA No. 2374/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & ITA No. 2375/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Vijayshree Autocom Ltd. M/s. Vijayshree Autocom Ltd “14. In our considered view, the Tribunal is fully right in vacating the penalty on the In our considered view, the Tribunal is fully right in vacating the penalty on the In our considered view, the Tribunal is fully right in vacating the penalty on the ground that the notice was defective. The provisions of the Act have clearly laid down ground that the notice was defective. The provisions of the Act have clearly laid down ground that the notice was defective. The provisions of the Act have clearly laid down the procedure to be followed and adhered to while imposing the penalty. The proposal the procedure to be followed and adhered to while imposing the penalty. The proposal the procedure to be followed and adhered to while imposing the penalty. The proposal for such penalty proceedings was separately initiated upon completion of assessment for such penalty proceedings was separately initiated upon completion of assessment for such penalty proceedings was separately initiated upon completion of assessment and there may be cases where the assessee would not even contest the order of and there may be cases where the assessee would not even contest the order of and there may be cases where the assessee would not even contest the order of assessment. But, that would not preclude the assessee from challenging the penalty assessment. But, that would not preclude the assessee from challenging the penalty assessment. But, that would not preclude the assessee from challenging the penalty proceedings, as penalty proceedings are independent and the procedure required to be , as penalty proceedings are independent and the procedure required to be , as penalty proceedings are independent and the procedure required to be followed cannot be dispensed with. followed cannot be dispensed with. 15. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the assessee, 15. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the assessee, 15. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the assessee, Section 271AAB of the Act, which deals with penalty consists of three of the Act, which deals with penalty consists of three of the Act, which deals with penalty consists of three contingencies. Therefore, the Assessing Officer should point out to the assessee as contingencies. Therefore, the Assessing Officer should point out to the assessee as contingencies. Therefore, the Assessing Officer should point out to the assessee as to to to under under under which which which of of of the the the three three three clauses, clauses, clauses, he he he chooses chooses chooses https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.Nos.770 & 771 of 2018 to proce https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.Nos.770 & 771 of 2018 to proce https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.Nos.770 & 771 of 2018 to proceed against the assessee so as to enable the assessee to give an effective reply. Since against the assessee so as to enable the assessee to give an effective reply. Since against the assessee so as to enable the assessee to give an effective reply. Since the same has not been mentioned, the assessee has been denied reasonable the same has not been mentioned, the assessee has been denied reasonable the same has not been mentioned, the assessee has been denied reasonable opportunity to put forth their submissions. The Tribunal, in paragraph 5 of the opportunity to put forth their submissions. The Tribunal, in paragraph 5 of the opportunity to put forth their submissions. The Tribunal, in paragraph 5 of the impugned order, has verbatim reproduced the penalty notice and we find that has verbatim reproduced the penalty notice and we find that has verbatim reproduced the penalty notice and we find that the notice is absolutely vague and none of the irrelevant portions had been the notice is absolutely vague and none of the irrelevant portions had been the notice is absolutely vague and none of the irrelevant portions had been struck off nor the relevant portions had been marked or indicated. Hence, the struck off nor the relevant portions had been marked or indicated. Hence, the struck off nor the relevant portions had been marked or indicated. Hence, the Tribunal is right in observing that the pe Tribunal is right in observing that the penalty could not have been levied based nalty could not have been levied based on such defective notice and more particularly, when the assessee has been on such defective notice and more particularly, when the assessee has been on such defective notice and more particularly, when the assessee has been strenuously canvassing the jurisdictional issue from the inception. strenuously canvassing the jurisdictional issue from the inception. strenuously canvassing the jurisdictional issue from the inception. 16. In so far as the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of 16. In so far as the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of 16. In so far as the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sandeep Chandak is concerned, the factual position is slightly different. This decision is for Chandak is concerned, the factual position is slightly different. This decision is for Chandak is concerned, the factual position is slightly different. This decision is for the principle that where the assessee, in the course of search, makes a statement, the principle that where the assessee, in the course of search, makes a statement, the principle that where the assessee, in the course of search, makes a statement, in which, he admits the undisclosed income and specifies the manner, in which, in which, he admits the undisclosed income and specifies the manner, in which, in which, he admits the undisclosed income and specifies the manner, in which, such income has been derived, then the provisions of such income has been derived, then the provisions of Section 271AAB Section 271AAB of the Act would automatically get attracted. There can be no quarrel over this would automatically get attracted. There can be no quarrel over this would automatically get attracted. There can be no quarrel over this proposition. But, once the provisions get attracted, it proposition. But, once the provisions get attracted, it is incumbent on the part of is incumbent on the part of the the the Assessing Assessing Assessing Officer Officer Officer to to to specify specify specify as as as to to to under under under which which which clause clause clause in in in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.Nos.770 & 771 of 2018 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.Nos.770 & 771 of 2018 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.Nos.770 & 771 of 2018 Section 271AAB(1) of the Act, he intends to proceed agai of the Act, he intends to proceed against the assessee. In the instant nst the assessee. In the instant case, in the absence of such material in the penalty notice, it has to be held that case, in the absence of such material in the penalty notice, it has to be held that case, in the absence of such material in the penalty notice, it has to be held that the notice is defective. the notice is defective. 17. The decisions of the Karnataka High Court in the cases of Manjunatha Cotton 17. The decisions of the Karnataka High Court in the cases of Manjunatha Cotton 17. The decisions of the Karnataka High Court in the cases of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory and SSA's Eme and Ginning Factory and SSA's Emerald Meadows and the decision of this Court rald Meadows and the decision of this Court in the case of Babuji Jacob clearly support our above conclusion. For all the in the case of Babuji Jacob clearly support our above conclusion. For all the in the case of Babuji Jacob clearly support our above conclusion. For all the above reasons, we find no grounds to interfere with the common order passed by above reasons, we find no grounds to interfere with the common order passed by above reasons, we find no grounds to interfere with the common order passed by the Tribunal.
As the facts of the case before us ar As the facts of the case before us are materially the same, e materially the same, we, therefore respectfully following the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of respectfully following the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of respectfully following the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of PCIT
ITA No. 2374/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & ITA No. 2375/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Vijayshree Autocom Ltd. M/s. Vijayshree Autocom Ltd vs. Shri R. Elangovan (supra) vs. Shri R. Elangovan (supra), hold that the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer , hold that the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer is invalid and is accordingly quashed is accordingly quashed. The appeals of the assessee are allowed on legal appeals of the assessee are allowed on legal issue. 10. The other issues raised on merits by the assessee are rendered academic in The other issues raised on merits by the assessee are rendered academic in The other issues raised on merits by the assessee are rendered academic in nature and, therefore, dismissed as such and are left open to be decided in future if need nature and, therefore, dismissed as such and are left open to be decided in future if need nature and, therefore, dismissed as such and are left open to be decided in future if need arises for the same.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
Kolkata, the Kolkata, the 28th day of March, 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Rajesh Kumar] [Sanjay Garg] [Rajesh Kumar Judicial Member Judicial Member Accountant Member Accountant Member Dated: 28.03.2022 {SC SPS} Copy of the order forwarded to: M/s. Vijayshree Autocom Ltd 1. M/s. Vijayshree Autocom Ltd Continental Chambers 15A, Hemant Basu Sarani Kolkata - 700001
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.