SHRI SHIVAJI DATTATRAY SONAWANE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.Nos.708 & 1089/PUN./2023 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Shri Shivaji Dattatray The Income Tax Officer, Sonawane, Sonawane Ward – 2 (1), Kendriya Mala, Samangaon Road, vs. Rajasva Bhavan, Gadkari Sinnar Phata, Nashik Chowk, Old Agra Road, Road, Nashik – 422 101. Nashik – 422 002. Maharashtra. Maharashtra PAN ACAPS3868A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sanket Joshi For Revenue : Shri Sourabh Nayak, JCIT Date of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 02.02.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :

These assessee’s twin appeals I.T.A.Nos.708 & 1089/PUN./2023, for assessment years 2017-2018 & 2018- 2019, arise against the National Faceless Appeal Centre’s [in short “NFAC”] as many orders dated 05th April and 29th September, 2023, having Din & Orders nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1051888360(1) and 1056661604(1) respectively; in proceedings u/sec.270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

2 I.T.A.Nos.708 & 1089/PUN./2023 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee’s identical sole substantive grievance in both these appeals challenges correctness of learned lower authorities’ action imposing the penalties of Rs.1,99,712/- 3,05,952/- in assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19; respectively. His first and foremost legal argument is in light of the relevant show cause notices; both dated 10.03.2021 that the learned Assessing Officer had nowhere specified the corresponding limb in sub-sec.270A(9) of the Act as he had sought to levy penalties under sub-sec.(8) thereof. Learned counsel has placed both these show cause notices as well as a compilation of case law reading as under :

3 I.T.A.Nos.708 & 1089/PUN./2023 3. The Revenue on the other hand has vehemently argued that the Assessing Officer’s identical show cause notices hereinabove only suffer from an unintended omission as he had duly initiated the impugned proceedings u/sec.270A of the Act not only in both these assessments dated 10.03.2021 but also his sec.270A penalty orders have duly pinpointed the corresponding limb in identical paragraphs 7.1 by invoking sec.270A (9) (a) of the Act and, therefore, the assessee hardly stands to gain from the foregoing unintentional mistake in the show cause notices. Mr. Nayak further took us to both these case files and vehemently argued that learned lower authorities have duly heard the assessee. He has not suffered from any prejudice which could vitiate the penalty proceedings before us in these facts.