9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 803X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income”. View taken by the coordinate bench in the case of Keti Sangam Infrastructure (I) Ltd and others V/s DCIT [2018 (6) TMI 1525 - ITAT INDORE] holding that where the specific charge has not been mentioned in the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act i.e. when one of the charge is not striked off then such notice did not satisfy the requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty of ₹ 71,500/- levied by the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act. 3. Briefly stated the facts as culled out from the records are that a search and seizure operations were carried out u/s 132 of the Act in the case of Keti/Kalyan Group and other associated business concerns on 05.05.2011. In the case of assessee assessment u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act was framed on 05. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... frastructure (I) Ltd v/s DCIT (Central), Indore I.T.A. No.516/Ind/2017 submitted that the identical facts were placed before the Co-ordinate Bench relating to other concerns of the same group and similar notices were issued having similar defects and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Principal Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee. 8. We find that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I Vs Kulwant Singh Bhatia (supra) adjudicated the very same issue and the Hon'ble High Court following the decision taken by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT V Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar) as well as the judgment of Hon' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id not satisfy the requirement of law, therefore the penalty proceedings becomes void ab initio. We therefore, respectfully following the above judgments as well as in the given facts and circumstances of the case, are of the view that the order of Ld.CIT(A) deserves to be set aside and the impugned penalty of ₹ 71,500/- needs to be deleted. We accordingly order so and allow the appeal of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
