M/s. FPI Industries Pvt.Ltd, Pune V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 9, Pune

ITA 1355/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1510 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 22-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” Ɋायपीठ पुणे मŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं. / ITA No.1355/PUN/2018 िनधाᭅरणवषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s.FPI Industries Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.147, Mahalungegaon, Chakan, Talegaon Road, Tal- Khed, Pune – 410501. PAN:AAGCP 3098 L Vs . The ACIT, Circle-9, Pune. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by None. Revenue by Shri Arvind Desai – DR Date of hearing 12/08/2022 Date of pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ ORDER Per S.S.Godara, JM: This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 is directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-8, Pune’s order dated 16.05.2018 passed in appeal no.PN/CIT(A)- 8/DCIT, cir-9/8/11/2017-18/71, in proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”]. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 3. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in imposing the section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.7,22,614/-, it emerges at the outset that the Assessing Officer’s corresponding penalty show cause notice ITA No.1355/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14 (A) M/s.FPI Industries Pvt. Ltd., 2 dated 26.02.2016 issued to the tax payer had nowhere specified or struck-off the relevant limb as to whether he had concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such an income, as the case may be. 3. Faced with the situation, we quote hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s recent Full Bench decision in hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s recent landmark decision in Mohd. Farhan A.Shaikh Vs. ACIT 434 ITR 1 (Bom) has settled the law that the above stated failure on the Assessing Officer’s part indeed vitiates the entire penal proceedings itself. We thus delete the impugned penalty for this precise reason alone. Ordered accordingly. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29 th August, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (S.S.GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 29 th Aug, 2022/ SGR* आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “ए” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune.