DCIT 13(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. NAVYUG KRISHI SADHAN P. LTD, MUMBAI

At the outset, Ld. DR submitted before us that the quantum appeal has been restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) by the Tribunal to call for (A.Y: 2010-11) M/s. Navyug Krishi Sadhan Pvt. Ltd., remand report and to decide the addition/disallowance afresh. Therefore, the Ld. DR submitted that the appeal may be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).

On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is bad in law, as the Assessing Officer did not specify for which limb of the notice the penalty is proposed to be levied and since the Assessing Officer did not strike off the irrelevant portion specifying the charge for which the penalty was to be imposed, the penalty order is bad in law. He placed reliance on the on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Samson Perinchery [392 ITR 4] and CIT v. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory [359 ITR 565].

Ld. DR in the rejoinder submitted that this contention was not raised before the Ld.CIT(A) by the assessee, no such ground was raised before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).

We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. On hearing both the sides, we are of the view that this appeal should be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to decide afresh in accordance with law as the quantum appeal has been restored by the (A.Y: 2010-11) M/s. Navyug Krishi Sadhan Pvt. Ltd., Tribunal to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) and the contentions of the assessee that the notice issued u/s. 274 is bad in law has not be raised before the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee is at liberty to raise legal issue before the Ld.CIT(A). Thus, we restore this matter to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law along with quantum appeal.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes.