2019 (1) TMI 40

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... essing Officer had not specified whether the penalty proceedings are on account of concealment of particulars or furnishing incorrect details / particulars. In the absence of the same being specified, the entire proceedings were held to be without jurisdiction. For the aforesaid conclusion, the impugned order of the Tribunal relied upon the order passed by its coordinate bench in the case of S .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961? 3. It is admitted position that the facts and the law applicable in both the assessment years are identical. The impugned order of the Tribunal allowed the respondent's appeals. This on holding that no penalty is imposable under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ecision in the case of Ashok Pai Vs. CIT, 292 ITR 11 . Being aggrieved by the above order dated 11th October, 2013 passed by the Tribunal in the case of Shri. Samson Perinchery (supra), the Revenue filed an appeal to this Court being Income Tax Appeal Nos. 953, 1097, 1154 and 1226 of 2014. This Court by order dated 5th January, 2017 dismissed the Revenue's appeal holding that the issue stan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X