PAL GRAM HINDU SARVAJANIK TRUST,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed
ITA 536/SRT/2018[2011-12 ]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jul 2021
Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.536/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Pal Gram Hindu Sarvajanik Trust, V The Income Tax Officer, At 7 Post : Pal, Tal. Choryasi, Exemption Ward, Surat. S. Dist – Surat – 395005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatp 2544 G (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hiren Vepari - Ca Respondent By : Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 02/07/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Surat [Ld.Cit(A)] Dated 30.05.2018, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of 1The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Dated 24.03.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “[1] On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. [2] With The Assessing Officer Failing To Specify In The Assessment Order As To Whether The Proceedings Were Initiated For Concealing Income Or Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income, The Penalty Order Was Required To Be Knocked Down In View Of The Decision Of The Gujarat High Court In Case Of Sorathia Engineering Co. Ltd. (282-Itr-642). [3] The Assessee Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Vary Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal.”
For Appellant: Shri Hiren Vepari - CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 142(1)Section 22Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)
11 (3) (1) of the Act, as per para-3 of penalty order.
The ld Counsel pointed out that penalty notice issued by assessing officer under section 271(1) (c ) is defective, so penalty should not be levied. The ld Counsel also argued that penalty in the assessee`s case is levied on Rs.11,34,117/-, which has been
