2020 (2) TMI 1304

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessee. There is no petition for adjournment either. Under these circumstances, we dispose off the case ex-parte on merits qua the assessee after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative. 3. Heard the ld. D/R. The assessee has challenged the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). We find that the notice issued for initiating the penalty proceedings is defective. The penalty imposed in pursuance of such defective notice is not sustainable in law. A copy of the said notice issued by the A.O. issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act, dt. 23/12/2010, is placed on record and is extracted for ready reference:- 3.1. The irrelevant portion have not been struck off by the A.O. in the n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....preme Court by its order dated 05.08.2016 dismissed the SLP preferred by the department. The ld. Counsel also brought to our notice the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Shri Samson Perinchery in ITA No.1154 of 2014 dated 05.01.2017 wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court following the decision of the the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning factory (supra) came to the conclusion that imposition of penalty on defective show cause notice without specifying the charge against the assessee cannot be sustained. Our attention was also drawn to the decision of ITAT in the case of Suvaprasanna Bhattacharya vs ACIT in ITA NO 1303/Kol/2010 dated 06.11.2015 wherein....