DEEPAK BHIKA SURYAWANSHI,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2(1), NASHIK

Learned DR vehemently argued that the instant issue is no more resintegra in light of the hon’ble jurisdictional high court recent decision in M/s. Veena Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2024) 158 taxmann.com 341 (Bombay) rejecting a similar plea in section 260A proceedings. Mr. Murkunde further sought to buttress the point that the learned lower authorities have duly considered the assessee’s explanation(s) in the penalty order as well as in the impugned lower appellate discussion and therefore, it could not be taken as a case wherein any prejudice would be held to have been caused to him.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s forgoing legal issue raised in the instant appeal that the impugned penalty proceedings stand vitiated on account of the Assessing Officer’s failure to pinpoint the relevant clauses (a) to (f) to sub- section (9); while initiating the proceedings herein u/s. 270A(8) of the Act, thereby alleging under reporting of income as a sequence of misreporting. Faced with this situation, we find no merit in Revenue’s arguments placing reliance on M/s. Veena Estate Pvt. Ltd. (supra) once the issue before their lordships was that of the concerned appellant seeking to frame an additional substantial question of law in section 260A proceedings whereas the law regarding the tribunal’s jurisdiction to entertain such a pure question of law, not requiring any further detailed investigation on facts, is already settled in NTPC Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). That being the case, we are of the considered view that going by the foregoing judicial precedent, this tribunal is very much entitled to entertain and decide such a pure legal plea for the first time in section 254(1) proceedings. We accordingly reject the Revenue’s instant technical arguments to conclude in light of section 270A (8) & (9) r.w. clauses (a to f) that the learned Assessing Officer’s failure to pinpoint the corresponding default of assessee’s part indeed vitiates the entire proceedings as per (2022) 443 ITR 186 (Del) Schneider Electric South Asia Ltd. Vs. ACIT (in the new scheme) and Md. Farhan Vs. ACIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) in section 271(1)(c) old penal provision. We order accordingly. The impugned penalty of Rs.98,324/- stands deleted in very terms.”