9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1764X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed by the Hon'ble apex Court which goes in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances and facts of the case, the notice has its inception, is bad in law and penalty so levied is directed to be quashed and the AO does not acquire any jurisdiction to levy penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, therefore the appeal of the assessee for asst. yr. 2010-11 is allowed. - ITA No. 281/Jodh/2017, CO No. 5/Jodh/2017 and ITA No. 21/Jodh/2016 - - - Dated:- 8-9-2017 - Mr B. P. Jain, Member And Mr Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Member For The Appellant : N.R. Mertia For The Respondents : Arvind KumarORDER ORDER B.P. Jain, Member 1. The appeal of the assessee for the asst. yr. 2010-11 in ITA No. 281/Jodh/2017 arises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify or suspend any of the grounds of appeal on or before or during the date of hearing. 2. Also the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 29/Jodh/2016 which arises from the order of learned CIT(A)-I, Udaipur dt. 19th Nov., 2015 for asst. yr. 2011-12. In both the appeals, learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that the AO has not specified under which limb of s. 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated. Copy of the notice for the asst. yr. 2010-11 is reproduced hereinbelow: Whereas in the course of proceeding before me for the asst. yr. 2010-11 it appears to me that you have concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Identical notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do not find any infirmity in the order of learned CIT(A) on merit which is a reasoned order but however, the learned counsel for the assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows (supra). In view of the same, the AO does not acquire any jurisdiction to levy penalty. Thus, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed for the asst. yr. 2011-12. 6. As regards Cross-Objection No. 5/Jodh/2017, the same has become infructuous for the reasons that the appeal of the Revenue does not survive, therefore, Cross-Objection of the assessee also does not survive. The same is held to be infructuous. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 281/Jodh/2017 is allowed, the appeal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
