9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh [ 2021 (3) TMI 608 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2019 (8) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Thus, since the penalty notice is omnibus and the charge has not been specified, the penalty is not sustainable. Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 1925/Del./2018 ITA No. 1926/Del./2018 - - - Dated:- 26-4-2023 - SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Assessee : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate For the Revenue : Ms. Kajal Singh, Sr. DR ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : These are appeals by the Revenue against the orders of ld. CIT (Appeals) for the concerned asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his case is below the limit fixed by the CBDT for filing the appeal in ITAT, hence the same is dismissed on account of tax effect. 5. As regards ITA No.1925/Del/2018 is concerned, ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed a petition under Rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 which read as under :- Sub: Petition in the case of She Sanjay Ghai for AY 1997-98 u/s 271(1)(c) in ITA No. 1925/Del/2018 under Rule 27 of The Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 In the above said case, the department has filed an appeal on 19.03.2018 which is fixed for hearing before Your Honours for 18.04.2023. It is respectfully submitted-that the respondent assessee hereby would like to seek the permission of the Hon'ble Bench to raise the fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TJ 51(UO) (Lucknow) f) DCIT vs. Anant Raj Industries Ltd., (2010) 124 ITD 0284 (Del.) g) ADIT vs. Bank of Tokyo -Mitsubishi UJF Ltd., (2009) 18 DTR 0432 (Del.) h) ACIT Anr. vs. Ravnet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Anr., (2017) 49 CCH 0156, (Del.) i) Hon'ble Delhi Bench in the case of DC IT vs. Jubliant Enpro Pvt. Ltd, (2014) 150 ITD 0419, have gone to the extent of holding that respondent cannot be debarred from raising that aspect of the issue which was not taken up before the first appellate authority or taken up but remain undecided. j) That Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jehangir H.C. Jehangir vs. ITO, (2014) 112 DTR 0262, have gone to the extent of holding that issue cannot be refused to be con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012 dated 11.03.2021. Similar proposition was laid down by Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. [2021] 432 ITR 84 (Del.) Thus, since the penalty notice is omnibus and the charge has not been specified, the penalty is not sustainable. Accordingly, following the precedent and on the undisputed proposition that relevant limb of the penalty notice was not identified as to whether penalty was for concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, we uphold the orders of the ld. CIT (A) deleting the penalty. 9. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 26th day of April, 2023. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
