Appeal dismissed due to technicality in show cause notice, penalty deleted. Legal precedent cited.

The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Ld. ITAT to delete the penalty and finding no justification for penalty proceedings due to a technicality in the show cause notice. The court relied on previous decisions, including one dated 11.11.2019, and cited Commissioner of Income Tax-11 Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. New Era Sova Mine to support its ruling. The court concluded that the substantial questions of law raised were not valid, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Consideration of substantial questions of law by the Ld. ITAT.
2. Deletion of penalty by Ld. ITAT.
3. Justification of penalty proceeding.
4. Comparison with previous court decisions.

Analysis:

1. The appellant's counsel argued that the Ld. ITAT erred in not considering the decision of the Apex Court in a specific case. The substantial questions of law raised were whether the Ld. ITAT erred in deleting the penalty and in holding the penalty proceeding fatal due to a technicality in the show cause notice. The respondent's counsel defended the ITAT's decision based on the reasons provided in the order and referred to a previous court decision.

2. The court noted that the issues raised in the appeal were already addressed in a previous order dated 11.11.2019, where a similar appeal was dismissed by the court after considering the decision of the Apex Court in a specific case. The court further cited other court decisions, including Commissioner of Income Tax-11 Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. New Era Sova Mine, to support their decision.

3. Based on the previous court orders and the decisions referenced, the court concluded that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal were not valid. Therefore, the court held that the appeal should be dismissed, following the reasoning provided in the previous order. The court also mentioned that there would be no order as to costs in this matter.

---