Shri Shivaji Dattatray Sonawane, Nashik vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Nashik
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed
ITA 707/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2023AY 2016-17
Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryshivaji Dattatray Sonawane, Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Sonawane Mala, Samangaon Nashik. Road, Sinnar Phata, Nashik Road, Nashik. Pan: Acaps 3868 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Naimish Sanjay Dixit Revenue By : Shri M.G. Jasnani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/09/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 05.04.2023 For A.Y.2016-17 As Per The Grounds Of Appeal On Record.
For Appellant: Shri Naimish Sanjay DixitFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274
…initio in the eyes of law. 4.1 The jurisdiction to impose penalty flows from the recording of the satisfaction of the AO. In case, there is a defect in the assumption of jurisdiction itself, no penalty can be levied as held in CIT v. Munish Iron Store [2003] 263 ITR 484 (P&H) as held in CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. [2000] 246 ITR 568 (Del). A bare reading of the provisions of sec.271 and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme 4 Shivaji Dattatray Sonawane Court in D. M. Manasvi v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 557 (SC) and CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar [1962] 44 I.T.R. 739 (SC), makes it clear that it is the authority…
