2024 (3) TMI 1097

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1051888360(1) and 1056661604(1) respectively; in proceedings u/sec. 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee's identical sole substantive grievance in both these appeals challenges correctness of learned lower authorities' action imposing the penalties of Rs.1,99,712/- 3,05,952/- in assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19; respectively. His first and foremost legal argument is in light of the relevant show cause notices; both dated 10.03.2021 that the learned Assessing Officer had nowhere specified the corresponding limb in sub-sec. 270A(9) of the Act as he had sought to levy penalties under sub-s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd. vs. ACIT [2022] 443 ITR 186 (Del.) (HC) and Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP vs. NFAC [2022] 334 CTR 363 (Del.) (HC). We further wish to draw support from hon'ble jurisdictional high court's decision in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom.)(HC) (FB) that such a failure on Assessing Officer's part in not specifying the relevant limb at the time of initiation of penalty itself vitiates the entire proceedings being in the nature of an incurable defect. Faced with the situation, we delete the impugned penalties of Rs.1,99,712/- and Rs.3,05,952/-; assessment year-wise, respectively. 5. Delay of 08 days in filing of assessee's former appeal ITA. No. 708/PUN./2023 is condoned in the larger interest of justi....