TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 456
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Tribunal in M/s J.K. Industries Ltd. (ITA No.4759 to 4765/Mum/2014), order dated 18/02/2016. This assertion of the assessee was not controverted by the ld. DR, Shri B.S. Bist. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Before coming to any conclusion, we are reproducing hereunder the relevant portion from the order of the Tribunal dated 18/02/2016 for ready reference and analysis:- "These appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai {(in short 'CIT(A)'}, dated 30.05.2014 for the assessment years 2005- 06 to 2011-12, passed against the penalty order pas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... operation had to be discontinued. Further, due to negative net worth the company had to surrender its license to Reserve Bank of India. It was further submitted that income tax search had taken place in the case of company and in pursuance to the same assessment proceedings of seven years had been commenced by the Income Tax department, and the assessee company had no staff or infrastructure to take care of such a voluminous work of collection of huge details and documents for seven years and making representation before the AO. The financial condition of the company was also very bad. Under these circumstances the AO claimed to have issue notice u/s 142(1) dated 04.09.2012 fixing the date of hearing on 10th September, 2012. She submitted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore us. It is noted that in pursuance to the search, the assessment proceedings of seven years were commenced by the Income Tax Department. The admitted facts on record are that the assessee company was a sick company, and was under the scheme of BIFR. We have further noted that it has been stated by the AO while levying the penalty that he had issued notice u/s 142(1) dated 04.09.2012 fixing the hearing for 10.09.2012, and since noncompliance was made by the assessee on 10.09.2012, and therefore, it was a fit case for levy of penalty, and accordingly, penalty was levied. We are surprised to note that the AO has no where mentioned in the assessment or penalty order that whether the impugned notice was served at all upon the assessee. It is ....