2025 (11) TMI 637

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e assessee has raised the following grounds in this appeal. "1. It is submitted that the order imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/-dated 28.06.2019 [ITBA/PNL/7271(1)(b)/2019-20/1016563977(1)] is bad in law and is required to be held as illegal as the penalty order is under the signature of Mr. Sanjay Kumar, ITO Exemption Ward, Thane. However, the Demand notice has been issued on 27.06.2019 by Mr. Prashant Singh, ITO Exemption Ward, Thane, i.e. one day prior to the issue of the penalty order dated 28.06.2019. This is highly irregular and a serious aberration which would render the order of penalty to be contrary to law and procedure. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the Trust on 24.07.2019 on the ground....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....00/- was levied for the reason that the assessee had not complied with four notices issued u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. Aggrieved with the penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted by the assessee in the statement of facts filed before Ld. CIT(A) that it had filed appeal against the order u/s. 144 and, therefore, the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b) should have been kept in abeyance by the Ld. AO. However, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the imposition of penalty amount in Rs. 40,000/- after observing that the assessee did not produce any evidence in support of his claim during the appellate proceedings. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribuna....