P R SUDEEP,ALATHUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed
ITA 1/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015
Bench: Shri Sanjay Aroraand Shri Manomohan Dasp.R. Sudeep Dy. Cit, Parakkal Bharath Gas Agencies Central Circle Bank Road, Alathur Vs. Thrissur Palakkad 678541 [Pan:Axsps7870B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.V. Venkitaraman, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:27.09.2023 O R D E R Persanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Under Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’)For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Levied Per Order Dated 28.6.2017, In First Appeal By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kochi-3 [Cit(A)], Vide His Order Dated 01.01.2021. 2. The Assessee’S Case Before Us & The Only One At That, Was That The Penalty Is Not Maintainable As Its Initiation, Upon Expressing Satisfaction In Its Respect In The Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2016, By Issue Of Show Cause Notice U/S. 274 Of Even Date, Is Bad In Law Inasmuch As It Is Qua Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C), No Longer Applicable For Search Cases, I.E.,01/7/2007 Onwards & Not As U/S. 271Aab Of The Act, Where The Search Is Initiated On Or After 01/7/2012 & For Which We Were Taken By Sh. Venkitaraman, The Learned Counsel For The Assessee, Through Sections 271 And271Aab Of The Act, As Well As The Impugned Notice (Pb Pg. 24).
For Appellant: Shri K.V. Venkitaraman, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 292B
271(1)(c) of the Act cannot, therefore, i.e., in view of section 292B, be regarded as defective. What, then, we wonder, is the controversy about; the assessee being only aware that the correct section for the purpose is, in view he being a searched person, s.271AAB, and not s.271(1)(c) of the Act? No prejudice stands caused
