M/S MELTING POINT, KOLHAPUR V. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KOLHAPUR

ITA 2118/PUN/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6543 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S P WALIMBE

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” Ɋायपीठ पुणे मŐ । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P.RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No.2118/PUN/2019 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Melting Point, Gat No.652, A/p Kushire, Taluka Panhala, District: Kolhapur. PAN: AACFM 2391 L Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, C .0ircle-1, Kolhapur. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by None Revenue by Shri S P Walimbe – DR Date of hearing 10/06/2022 Date of pronouncement 16/06/2022 आदेश / ORDER Per S.S.Godara, JM: This Assessee’s appeal for A.Y.2011-12 is directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Kolhapur’s order dated 01.11.2019 in Appeal No.KOP/433/2014-15 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. 2. It emerges at the outset that we hardly need to delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix so far as the correctness of the impugned section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty of Rs.2,23,768/- imposed in both the lower proceedings is concerned. This for the reason that a perusal of the ITA No.2118/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2011-12 Melting Point vs. ACIT (A) 2 Assessing Officer’s corresponding show-cause notice dated 05.12.2013 issued to the assessee nowhere specified as to whether it had concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This clinching fact has gone unrebutted from the revenue’s side. 3. Faced with the situation, we quote hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s recent Full Bench decision in Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh vs. ACIT [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom) that such a failure in Assessing Officer’s part in not specifying the corresponding limb in the penalty show cause notice itself is very much fatal to the entire process and not sustainable in law. We adopt the very reasoning herein as well to delete the impugned penalty for this precise reason alone. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed on above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16 th June, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (DIPAK P.RIPOTE) (S S GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 16 th June, 2022/ SGR* आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / 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. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “बी” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune.