2023 (11) TMI 867

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing officer (AO) had not indicated, with clarity, the ground on which penalty had been levied i.e., on account of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Thus, according to the Tribunal, this issue already stood covered against the appellant/revenue in several judgments. No substantial question of law. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTIC .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... efiling is condoned. 2.1 It is ordered accordingly. 3. The application is, accordingly, disposed of. ITA 335/2023 4. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2004-05. 5. Via the instant appeal, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 30.03.2022 and corrigendum dated 08.04.2022 issued by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, Tribunal ]. 6. The issue tha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... itled Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. Gopal Kumar Goyal , concerning the very same AY, i.e., AY 2004-05 came up for adjudication before this court. The said appeal preferred by the appellant/revenue was closed with a detailed order concluding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. 9. Given the aforesaid circumstances, the same fate will follow insofar as thi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X