Satish Danachand Ghodawat, Kolhapur V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle, , Ichalkaranji

ITA 938/PUN/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0518 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M.G.JANSNANI
• Assessee Lawyers: MRUNAL N.KULAKARANI
• Section: 271(1)(c)

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 आयकर अपीलसं. / ITA No.938/PUN/2019 िनधाᭅरणवषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Satish Danachand Ghodawat, Vardhaman, Malbhag, Jasingpur, Maharashtra – 416116. PAN: ADLPG 5042 Q V s. The ACIT, Circle Ichalkaranji. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Mrunal N.Kulakarani – AR Revenue by Shri M.G.Jansnani - DR Date of hearing 11/07/2022 Date of pronouncement 04/08/2022 आदेश/ ORDER Per S.S.Godara, JM: This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Kolhapur’s order dated 09.04.2019 passed in appeal no.Ich/CIT(A- 2/075/2015-16, in proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”]. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 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.88,310/-, it emerges at the outset that the Assessing Officer’s corresponding penalty show cause notice dated 31.12.2010 issued to the taxpayer had nowhere specified or struck-off the relevant limb as to whether he had concealed ITA No.938/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2009-10 (A) Satish Danachand Ghodawat Vs. ACIT 2 particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, as the case may be. 3. Faced with the situation and after having heard vehement rival contentions, we are of the opinion that there is hardly any need for us to delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix once 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 the impugned penalty for this precise reason alone. Ordered accordingly. 4. All other pleadings on merits are rendered academic. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 4 th August, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (S.S.GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 4 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, “बी” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune.