Shri Shivaji Dattatray Sonawane, Nashik V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Nashik, Nashik

ITA 1089/PUN/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4002 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-02-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 31-01-2024
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 15-10-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.Nos.708 & 1089/PUN./2023 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Shri Shivaji Dattatray Sonawane, Sonawane Mala, Samangaon Road, Sinnar Phata, Nashik Road, Nashik – 422 101. Maharashtra. PAN ACAPS3868A vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2 (1), Kendriya Rajasva Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Road, Nashik – 422 002. Maharashtra (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sanket Joshi For Revenue : Shri Sourabh Nayak, JCIT Date of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 02.02.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : These assessee’s twin appeals I.T.A.Nos.708 & 1089/PUN./2023, for assessment years 2017-2018 & 2018- 2019, arise against the National Faceless Appeal Centre’s [in short “NFAC”] as many orders dated 05 th April and 29 th September, 2023, having Din & Orders nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1051888360(1) and 1056661604(1) respectively; in proceedings u/sec.270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2 I.T.A.Nos.708 & 1089/PUN./2023 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee’s identical sole substantive grievance in both these appeals challenges correctness of learned lower authorities’ action imposing the penalties of Rs.1,99,712/- 3,05,952/- in assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19; respectively. His first and foremost legal argument is in light of the relevant show cause notices; both dated 10.03.2021 that the learned Assessing Officer had nowhere specified the corresponding limb in sub-sec.270A(9) of the Act as he had sought to levy penalties under sub-sec.(8) thereof. Learned counsel has placed both these show cause notices as well as a compilation of case law reading as under : 3 I.T.A.Nos.708 & 1089/PUN./2023 3. The Revenue on the other hand has vehemently argued that the Assessing Officer’s identical show cause notices hereinabove only suffer from an unintended omission as he had duly initiated the impugned proceedings u/sec.270A of the Act not only in both these assessments dated 10.03.2021 but also his sec.270A penalty orders have duly pinpointed the corresponding limb in identical paragraphs 7.1 by invoking sec.270A (9) (a) of the Act and, therefore, the assessee hardly stands to gain from the foregoing unintentional mistake in the show cause notices. Mr. Nayak further took us to both these case files and vehemently argued that learned lower authorities have duly heard the assessee. He has not suffered from any prejudice which could vitiate the penalty proceedings before us in these facts. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing vehement rival stands and find no merit in Revenue’s arguments. This is for the precise reason that it has duly come on record in light of the Assessing Officer’s corresponding twin identical show cause notices that he had not specified the corresponding limb u/sec.270A(8) read with sub-section(9) thereof as was held in various judicial pronouncements G.R. Infraprojects Ltd. vs. ACIT [D.B. Civil Writ Petition no.5594/2023 – Rajasthan High Court dated 02.01.2014]; Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd. vs. ACIT [2022] 443 ITR 186 (Del.) (HC) and Prem Brothers 4 I.T.A.Nos.708 & 1089/PUN./2023 Infrastructure LLP vs. NFAC [2022] 334 CTR 363 (Del.) (HC). We further wish to draw support from hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom.)(HC) (FB) that such a failure on Assessing Officer’s part in not specifying the relevant limb at the time of initiation of penalty itself vitiates the entire proceedings being in the nature of an incurable defect. Faced with the situation, we delete the impugned penalties of Rs.1,99,712/- and Rs.3,05,952/-; assessment year-wise, respectively. 5. Delay of 08 days in filing of assessee’s former appeal ITA.No.708/PUN./2023 is condoned in the larger interest of justice and in light of the corresponding averments in condonation affidavit. 6. These assessee’s twin appeals I.T.A. Nos.708 & 1089/PUN./2023 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open Court on 02.02.2024. Sd/- Sd/- [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 02 nd February, 2024 VBP/- 5 I.T.A.Nos.708 & 1089/PUN./2023 Copy to 1. The applicant 2. The respondent 3. The NFAC, Delhi. 4. The Pr. CIT, Pune concerned 5. D.R. ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.