Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 652 - ITAT MUMBAIPenalty under section 271(1)(c) - unsigned penalty order - Held that:- Undisputedly, on verification of the original penalty order under section 271(1)(c) communicated to the assessee, which was produced for verification of the Bench, it is noticed that though it bears the official seal of the Assessing Officer but there is no signature of the Assessing Officer on the body of the order. The assessee has also filed an affidavit clearly and categorically stating therein that the unsigned penalty order is the only order received by him from the Assessing Officer. The claim of the assessee appears to be correct considering the fact that the assessee on more than one occasion has requested the Assessing Officer to supply a signed copy of the penalty order. When the assessee has repeatedly requested the Assessing Officer to supply a signed copy of the penalty order, we see no reason why the Assessing Officer should be adamant and stubborn in his attitude in communicating a signed copy of the penalty order. In fact, the Department has failed to conclusively prove the fact that the penalty order communicated to the assessee was signed by the Assessing Officer, whereas the assessee not only has produced the original unsigned penalty order received from the Assessing Officer but also filed an affidavit in support of such claim. In our view, in the absence of any contrary evidence brought to our notice, we are inclined to accept the assessee's version that the penalty order received by him from the office of the Assessing Officer does not bear the signature of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in our opinion, an unsigned order has no legal sanctity, hence, invalid in law. Penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) deleted - Decided in favour of assessee.
|