Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A”
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
ORDER
Per S.S.Godara, JM:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 is directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-8, Pune’s order dated 16.05.2018 passed in appeal no.PN/CIT(A)- 8/DCIT, cir-9/8/11/2017-18/71, in proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”].
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
3. 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.7,22,614/-, it emerges at the outset that the Assessing Officer’s corresponding penalty show cause notice
A.Y. 2013-14 (A) M/s.FPI Industries Pvt. Ltd., dated 26.02.2016 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.