Back
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (MUMBAI BENCH)
Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member, Prabhash Shankar, Accountant Member
Prakash Hirachand Mutha – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduces appeals against penalty orders under section 271(1)(c). (Para 1) |
| 2. assessee's grounds: defective notice u/s 274, time-barred, estimation basis. (Para 2 , 9) |
| 3. unrecorded sales/purchases added as income post-search. (Para 3) |
| 4. cit(a) dismisses defective notice argument, upholds penalty. (Para 4) |
| 5. ar argues ao failed to specify penalty limb in notice. (Para 5) |
| 6. penalty notice invalid for not striking off irrelevant limb. (Para 6) |
| 7. penalty unsustainable due to show cause notice infirmity. (Para 7) |
| 8. appeals allowed; penalties deleted for both a.y.s. (Para 8 , 10 , 11) |
आदेश/ORDER
PER BENCH :-
The above captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of even date passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to the penalty orders passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for the Assessment Years [A.Y.] 2005-06 and 2006-07. Since the issues are common and interlinked, these appeals are being taken up together for adjudication vide this composite order for the sake of brevity. ITANo.6019/Mum/2025
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
