2022 (5) TMI 1643

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....43(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the 'Act') vide order dated 27.12.2011. The penalty under dispute u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the ITO, Ward (3), Cuddalore vide his order dated 28.06.2012. 2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is without jurisdiction and for this, he drew our attention to first two grounds raised, which reads as under:- "1. The order of the CIT (A) is contrary to law and opposed to the facts and circumstances of the case and opposed to fair procedure. 2. The CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed copy of notice i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the first time after 10 years. Subsequently, the ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the Hon'ble Madras High Court has clarified the decision of Gangotri Textiles Ltd., in the case of Babuji Jacob vs. ITO, [2021] 430 ITR 259 and noted in para 31 & 32 that the facts in Gangotri Textiles Ltd., and Sundaram Finance Ltd., were on different factual position wherein the court rejected the plea of the assessee as regards to the argument of validity of notice, which was raised for the first time before Hon'ble High Court and not before the lower authorities. The relevant observation of Hon'ble High Court in para 31 & 32 reads as under:- 31. The decision of this Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd., was couched on a different....