DCIT, CC-3, Thane vs. M/S. Sai Sugam Enterprises, Vasai
In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed
ITA 1474/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2011-12
Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1474/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Dcit, Central Circle-3 बिधम/ Sai Sugam Enterprises D- Room No. 11, A-Wing, 6Th Ii-01/02 Aakansha Vs. Floor, Ashar I. T. Park, Commercial Comp., Road No. 16-Z Wagle Nallasopara (West), Industrial Estate, Thane 401209. (W)-400604. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abvfs4193G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi Revenue By: Dr. Kishore Dhule (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune Dated 10.02.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi Pointed Out That The Ao Had Levied An Amount Of Rs.71,78,070/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) By Penalty Order Dated 14.02.2017 For Ay. 2011-12. According To Him, On Appeal, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Taken Note Of The Fact That In The Notice Issued By Ao Before Levy Of Penalty, The Ao Failed To Strike Out The Faults/Charges Which Are Not Applicable To Assessee. Meaning, Ao In The Penalty Notice Didn’T Specify The Fault/Charge Against Which Assessee Is Being Proceeded Against For Levy Of Penalty; & So, Assesse Was In The Dark As To What Was The Fault Charged Against
For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule (DR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274
…n the case of PCIT Vs. Goa Dourado Promotions (P.) Ltd. (Tax Appeal No.18 of 2019, dated 26.11.2019) and also held that the contrary view taken by an 3 A.Y. 2011-12 M/s. Sai Sugam Enterprises another division bench in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) does not lay down the correct proposition of law. 4. As noted earlier, we find that the penalty notice dated 06.09.2016 did not explicitly convey to the assessee the specific fault/charge the assessee is being proceeded for levy of penalty. Resultantly, the show cause notice was found to be defective/invalid and therefore it was held by Ld…
