Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ABENCH,
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHIR INTURI RAMA RAO
आयकर अपीलसं. / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Late Kadir Usman Shaikh, The Income Tax Officer, Legal Hier: Smt.Bilks Kadir Vs Ward-8(4), Pune. Shaikh, Bunglow No.1, Vijay Nagar, Vardhman Society, Lonavala, Dist.Pune – 410401. PAN: ABXPS 8262 Q Revenue Assessee Assessee by Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani & Paresh Shingavi – AR Revenue by Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde – DR Date of hearing 07/09/2022 Date of pronouncement 08/09/2022 आदेश/ ORDER Per S.S.Godara, JM: These assessee’s appeals for Assessment Year 2006-07 arises against the CIT(A), Pune-6’s orders dated 17.05.2019 passed in case no.PN/CIT(A)-6/ITO W.8(4)/318/2014-15 in proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”].
Heard both the parties. Case files perused.
It emerges at the outset that the appellant herein Smt.Bilkis Kadir Shaikh the legal heir of the diseased assessee Shri Kadir Usman Shaikh. She challenges correctness of both the learned lower A.Y.2006-07 [A] L/h.Smt.Bilkis K.Shaikh, Late Kadir U.Shaikh authorities action imposing section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.3,17,517/- pertaining to the estimation of profits derived from sale of land treated as business income followed by section 40A(3) disallowance made in the assessment order dated 31.12.2009.
We next note that there is hardly any need for us to delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix. Suffice to say, the assessee herein Shri Kadir Usman Shaikh appears to have expired well before the Assessing Officer’s penalty order dated 28.03.2014. That being the case, we quote CIT vs. S.Gouri [2019] 417 ITR 45(Madras) to hold that the impugned penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer is not maintainable against the assessee’s legal heir herein under section 159 of the Act. We therefore delete the impugned penalty for this precise reason alone. All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.