9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er to appear in person or through a duly authorised representative. This shorter period of less than 24 hours can be termed as a pure and simple breach of principles of natural justice. It appears that on 28.11.2022, request was made for adjournment and the same is also reflected from the portal of the Tribunal and that such a request had been made to adjourn the hearing by few days. Without paying any heed to the same, when the order impugned has been passed, the Court requires to interfere. the petition is allowed. The impugned order of penalty is quashed and set aside. - R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 26442 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 6-2-2023 - HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT FO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tribution and finalized assessment under section 143(3) of the Act by passing order on 18.03.2013. 2.3 Aggrieved petitioner preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The petitioner company had contended that it had taken the said investment in its books, as the investment was made in the name and style of M/s. Checkmate Apparels, a proprietorship concern of Mrs. Sharmila Mahurkar. CIT(Appeals) partly allowing the appeal on 02.05.2014. 3 The challenge was made before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( the Tribunal for short), which also confirmed the addition on 30.03.2022. The show cause notice came to be issued under section 274 read with section 271 (1)(c) of the Act on 28.11.2022 at 2:40 p.m. requesting to appear in person or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t issued on 18.03.2013 and subsequently further notice on 28.11.2022 under section 274 of the Act read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued calling upon the petitioner to respond by 11:00 a.m. on 29.11.2022. It is the say of the respondent that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer does not mention as to under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty proceedings has been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, and, therefore, the penalty order is bad in law. It is further the say of the respondent that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has made addition on the issue of loan and advance given to Mrs.Sharmila Mahur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
