TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 925
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....partment for assessment year 2014-15. 2. The common contention in both these Miscellaneous Applications read as under: " That a search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted at the residential premises of the directors of the company on 24.10.2013. The assessment in this case was completed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 23.03.2016 at return income accepted. Further, penalty u/s 271AAB amounting to Rs. 7,00,000/- and Rs. 12,50,000/- was imposed on the assessees on the undisclosed income amounting to Rs. 70,00,000/- and Rs. 1,25,00,000/- in the case of Shri Sadhu Ram Rupal and M/s Marvel Dyers & Processors Pvt Ltd, Ludhiana respectively admitted by the assessee u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act by o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase it is crystal clear from the penalty order passed by the Assessing officer that the order was passed on 29/09/2016 while the approval from the Additional CIT, Range Ludhiana was accorded vide letter No. 1036 dated 30.09.2016, which clearly established that the penalty order was passed by the Assessing Officer on 29/09/2016 before taking the approval from the concerned Additional CIT,JCIT. Therefore, the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer for levying the penalty under section 271AAB of the Act was void abinitio. In that view of the matter the impugned penalty levied u/s 271AAB of the Act by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is deleted." ITA No. 266/Chd/2018 In ITA No. 266/Chd/2018 for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rly remained unchanged on the order which was passed after prior approval on 30.09.2016. The above facts could be summarized as below: Name of the Assessee A.Y. Date of Submission of draft order Date of Penalty order in draft order Date of Approval Date mentioned in penalty order (final order Date of service M/s Sadhu Ram Rupal. 2014-15 29/09/2016 29/09/2016 30/09/2016 29/09/2016 30/09/2016 & Name of the Assessee A.Y. Date of Submission of draft order Date of Penalty order in draft order Date of Approval Date mentioned in penalty order (final order Date of service M/s Marvel Dyers & Processors Pvt Ltd. 2014-15 29/09/2016 29/09/2016 30/09/2016 29/09/20 16 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aken or purported to have been furnished or made or issued or taken in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding if such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act." 8. That the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court while deciding the matter of Mulchand Rampuria Vs ITO(2001)252 ITR 758(Cal) has held that 'after enactment of section 292B which came into force on 01.10.1975, no notice shall be deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enalty order was passed by the A.O. on 29/09/2016 and the approval was accorded by the Additional Commissioner, Range Ludhiana on 30/09/2016, so there is no mistake in the order passed by the ITAT and the Department is seeking review of order which is not permissible. 5. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available on record. We find that the identical pleadings have been taken by the Revenue in M.A. Nos. 147 & 148/Chd/2019 (in ITA Nos. 490 & 491/Chd/2018) in the case of 'DCIT vs M/s Sportking India Ltd, Ludhiana'. The Coordinate Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal while adjudicating the identical grounds in the case of 'DCIT vs M/s Sportking India Ltd, Ludhiana' (supra) order dated 7.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5.2 A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. reported in (2007) 293 ITR 132 wherein it has been held as under: "A plain reading of the provision indicates that in order to exercise the power vested in it under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has to ensure that the following factors are present: (a) The application is made within 4 years from the date of the order sought to be rectified. (b) There is a mistake apparent from the record which is brought to its notice by either the assessee or the Assessing Officer. As regards the procedure to be followed, if the amendment sought has the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducin....