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, “B”
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
ORDER
Per S.S.Godara, JM:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Kolhapur’s order dated 09.04.2019 passed in appeal no.Ich/CIT(A- 2/075/2015-16, in proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”].
Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 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.88,310/-, it emerges at the outset that the Assessing Officer’s corresponding penalty show cause notice dated 31.12.2010 issued to the taxpayer had nowhere specified or struck-off the relevant limb as to whether he had concealed
A.Y. 2009-10 (A) Satish Danachand Ghodawat Vs. ACIT particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, as the case may be.
Faced with the situation and after having heard vehement rival contentions, we are of the opinion that there is hardly any need for us to delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix once 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 the impugned penalty for this precise reason alone. Ordered accordingly.
All other pleadings on merits are rendered academic.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 4th August, 2022.