Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B”
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
आयकर अपीलसं. / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/s.Tamanna Hospitality The DCIT, Circle-7, Pune. Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Plot No.P*7, Phase-1, Rajiv Gandhi Info Park, Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057. PAN: AACCT 3364 R Revenue Assessee Assessee by Shri Abhay Avachat – AR Revenue by Shri M.G.Jasnani – DR Date of hearing 08/07/2022 Date of pronouncement 29/09/2022 आदेश/ ORDER
Per S.S.Godara, JM:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Years 2014-15 arises against the CIT(A), Pune-5’s orders dated 21.09.2018 passed in case no.PN/CIT(A)-5/DCIT,Circle-7, Pune/10083/2017-18 in proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”].
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in imposing the section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.24,47,790/-, it emerges at the outset A.Y.2014-15 [A] M/s.Tamanna Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd., that the Assessing Officer’s corresponding penalty show cause notice dated 13.12.2016 issued to the tax payer had nowhere specified or struck-off the relevant limb as to whether he had concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such an income, as the case may be.
Faced with the situation, we quote hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s recent Full Bench decision in hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s recent landmark decision in Mohd. Farhan A.Shaikh Vs. ACIT 434 ITR 1 (Bom) has settled the law that the above stated failure on the Assessing Officer’s part indeed vitiates the entire penal proceedings itself. We thus delete the impugned penalty for this precise reason alone. Ordered accordingly.