9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. SSA s Emerald Meadows [ 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] endorsed the same view in Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory [ 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] . As well as the binding decision of the Full bench decision of the Hon ble jurisdiction High Court s in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh [ 2021 (3) TMI 608 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] we direct the deletion of the penalty levied in this case. Appeal of assessee allowed. - ITA No. 1852/Mum/2021 - - - Dated:- 3-8-2022 - SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by : Sh. Nitesh Thakkar, CA Respondent by : Sh. Vijay Kumar Soni, Sr-DR ORDER PER GAGAN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case, the incorrect penalty levied of Rs 1, 00,000/- wrongly invoking the provisions of Section 271B of the Act be deleted in the interest of justice. 3. The order passed by the learned CIT (A) is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of law and facts. It is submitted that the same be held so now. 4. Your appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or to amend all or any of the grounds before the final hearing. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) declaring a loss of Rs. 47,022/-. A search was conducted on 04.02.2011 in the case of M/s JIK Industries Ltd. And at the premises of CMD Shri R.G. Parikh, the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dark as to what fault it has to defend against the proposed penalty. Therefore, according to him, since the show cause notice itself is bad in law, the resultant penalty levied is vitiated. For that, he relied on the decisions of the Full bench of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) dated 11.03.2021 wherein their Lordships has held that the show cause notice issued prior to levy of penalty without specifying the fault/charge against which the assessee is being proceeded, would vitiate the penalty itself. And thus the Hon ble Court upheld the view of the division bench order in the case of PCIT Vs. Goa Dourado Promotions (P.) Ltd. (Tax Appeal No.18 of 2019, dated 26.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565/218 Taxman 423/35 taxmann.com 250(Kar). 4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 6. Respectfully following the judicial precedents as well as the binding decision of the Full bench decision of the Hon ble jurisdiction High Court s in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh (supra), we direct the deletion of the penalty levied in this case. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
