Back
G. S. KULKARNI, JITENDRA JAIN
Veena Estate Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai City-IX, Mumbai – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G.S. KULKARNI, J.
1. A short but interesting question has arisen in the present proceedings though not raised as a question of law, however, in the context of the appellant’s contention that the proceedings would stand covered by a decision of this Court in the case of Ventura Textile Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai City-II, (2020) 117 taxmann.com 182 (Bom.). The question is as to whether an alleged defect in the notice issued to the appellant under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Act, in regard to which the appellant had never raised an objection from the very inception, that is since last 30 years (from 19 August, 1993), can now be permitted to be raised, in the absence of any prejudice being caused to the appellant - assessee.
2. This appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “I.T. Act”) is filed by the appellant/assessee, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30 October, 2001 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short “ITAT”) whereby the respondent/Revenue’s appeal against the order passed by th
Penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271AAB defective if it fails to specify applicable clause, vitiating proceedings for violating natural justice by denying specific charge awareness.
Natural justice is context-dependent; its violation must demonstrate actual prejudice to affect the legality of administrative actions like environmental compensation assessment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
