AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI
In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above
ITA 2804/MUM/2012[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 1999-00
Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. &
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274
2 SCC 718]”
We further find that at para 9 of the order in Reliance Petroproducts P.
Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:
“9. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything