Pr. CIT v. Sandeep Chandak

SUSHIL KUMAR PAUL,SILIGURI vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Sushil Kumar Paul Acit, Circle-2, Siliguri. C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Vs. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700 069. (Pan: Akfpp 4837 K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Siliguri Dated 23.08.2019 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs. 23,70,000/- Imposed By The Ao By Wrongly Invoking The Provisions Of Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act.

…lso placed on the judgment in DCIT vs R. Elangovan (Trib. Chennai) (CL 113), where again it was held that since the penalty notice u/s. 271AAB was vague, penalty cannot be levied. Further, ld CIT(A) has referred to the judgment of Pr. CIT vs Sandeep Chandak 405 ITR 648 (All.). This judgment was discussed and distinguished in the case of Ravi Mathur vs DCIT (TS-8004-ITAT-2018(Jaipur)-O) (CL-131-155).” 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that before levying the penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act, the ld. AO has to issue noticed u/s 274 of the Act as provided in section 271AAB(3) of the Act. In the notice issued…