DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI
In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed
ITA 3556/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2009-10
Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm
For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)
u/s 274 RWs 271 (1) (c) of the Act.
Thus, It is apparent that notwithstanding the defective notice, the assessee was fully aware of the reason as to why the Assessing
Officer sought to impose penalty. Thus, significant features of the case in hand are that penalty proceedings were initiated during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer had although issued
