9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) - Durgapur, dated 23.01.2019 whereby he confirmed the penalty of Rs. 2,05,192/- imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee in the present case is an individual who filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 29.08.2015 declaring a total income of Rs. 2,54,450/-. In the said return, prof ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said penalty imposed by the AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. At the time of hearing of this appeal, none was present for the department. This appeal is accordingly being disposed of ex-parte qua the respondent department after hearing the learned counsel for the assessee and perusing the releva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was upheld by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court holding that the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) without specifying which of the two contraventions, the assessee is guilty of was defective and the penalty imposed in pursuance of such defective notice was not sustainable. To arrive at this conclusion, Hon'ble Kolkata High Court relied on the decision of Amrit Foods vs Commissioner of Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
