9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ily members, as per the Departmental record, were directors of a group of bogus companies engaged in providing accommodation entries. As relevant to mention that the appeals are against the imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(b) which talks of imposing penalty for non-compliance with the notice issued by the Department under certain sections including section 142(1). Merits of the additions become ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 58/NAG/2017 - - - Dated:- 21-9-2022 - Shri R.S. Syal, Vice President For the Appellant : Shri Kapil Hirani. For the Respondent :by Shri G.J. Ninawe. ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This batch of seven appeals by the assessee poses a challenge to the consolidated order passed by the CIT(A)-3, Nagpur on 02-05-2017 confirming the penalty of Rs.10,000/- each imposed by the Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - by the AO. The assessee contended before the ld. CIT(A) that the notice u/s.142(1) was not received by the assessee inasmuch as it was served on one Shri Chaitanya Kochar, who was neither a Director nor a Shareholder or Principal Officer of the company. The ld. CIT(A) remained unconvinced and affirmed the penalty order. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has approached the Tribunal. Facts and circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance with the notice issued by the Department under certain sections including section 142(1). Merits of the additions become irrelevant insofar as the question of issuance of notice and the consequential penalty u/s.271(1)(b) is concerned. It goes without saying that notice u/s.142(1) needs to be properly served on the assessee who is required to submit his reply. If notice is served on a wrong p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
