9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeals filed by Revenue against CIT(A) order for assessment year 1999-2000.
Issue 1: Reliance on ITAT decision The Revenue filed appeals against CIT(A) order, contending that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by relying on the decision of ITAT Amritsar Bench, which quashed the AO's order on a legal issue without considering the facts, even though the issue was not final. The Revenue sought to set aside CIT(A) order and restore that of the AO. Issue 2: Initiation of penalty proceedings The Revenue argued that CIT(A) erred in holding the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) as bad in law due to a dispute regarding the service of notice on the POA of the assessee. The Revenue asserted its right to challenge ITAT's decision before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Revenue prayed for dismissal of the appeals. Judgment Details: The facts presented by the Revenue were undisputed by both parties, eliminating the need for repetition. The Ld. counsel for the assessee highlighted that previous orders by the Bench had quashed the assessments in dispute, leading to the dismissal of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. DR, however, relied on the Assessing Officer's orders. Upon hearing both parties and reviewing relevant material, including previous Bench orders, it was concluded that the assessments in dispute had been quashed, rendering the penalty under section 271(1)(c) irrelevant. The Ld. CIT(A) also canceled the penalty based on the previous Bench decision. The impugned order of the CIT(A) cited the invalidity of the assessments and subsequent penalty proceedings, leading to their cancellation. Based on the discussions and the impugned order, it was determined that the Ld. first appellate authority correctly deleted the penalty based on the quantum order passed by the Bench. No interference was deemed necessary in the well-reasoned order of the Ld. first appellate authority, resulting in the dismissal of the appeals filed by the Revenue. Therefore, all three appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
|
