9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1052X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o delete the penalty impose thereof. Thus findings of Tribunal is applicable to the facts of the present case on hand and by applying the same hold that the Respondent-Revenue could not show any evidence establishing that the notices were served on the assessee properly. Thus, a penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act as confirmed by the CIT(A) is set-aside. Thus, grounds of appea raised by the assessee are allowed. - ITA Nos. 245 to 251/NAG/2017 - - - Dated:- 1-11-2022 - SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI , JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by : Shri Sanjay C. Thakar Revenue by : Shri G. J. Ninawe ORDER PER S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI , JM : All these appeals by the assessee against the common order dated 02.05.2017 passed by the CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on was raised before the CIT(A) that no notices u/s 142(1), 143(2) and 271(1)(b) of the Act were served on the assessee at all. In this regard, the CIT(A) sought remand report from the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer stated, in the said remand report which is reproduced from page no.7 to 11 of the impugned order, that the notices were issued to Shri Chaitanya Kochar who is associated with the assessee company, also covered in the search and seizure operations. Considering the said remand report, the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 7. Before me, the ld. AR Shri Sanjay C. Thakar placed on record order dated 21.09.2022 passed by this tribunal in the case of M/s. Sterlight Finc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the ITAT s order in the case of M/s. Sterlight Fincom Pvt. Ltd. (supra) which held when there is no notice properly served on the assessee, there can be no question of imposing or confirming any penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act and ordered to delete the penalty impose thereof. In the present case also, the main contention of the ld. AR is that no notices at all served on the assessee and penalty as confirmed by the CIT(A) is liable to setaside. I find the facts and circumstances arising out of the present appeal are similar and identical to the facts and circumstances in the case of M/s. Sterlight Fincom Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in which the Tribunal considered the similar issue and deleted the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for non-s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
