9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was no justification for levy of penalty. - ITAT sustained the order of CIT(A) – Held that:- In view of the judgment of this court dt.l8th August, 2010 since the appeals preferred by the revenue have been dismissed, the present appeal preferred against the order of ITAT on account of these changed circumstances, does not hold any merit. However, the ITAT itself while dismissing the appeal vide o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mandi Samiti, Shrimadhopur, District Sikar). As it reveals from the record, the assessment order was initially passed by the assessing authority on 11th December, 2006 and that was challenged in appeal before the CIT (Appeals) which was partly allowed and while confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer, the CIT (Appeals) directed to allow depreciation on various assets. The assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... February, 2007. However, an appeal came to be preferred by the assessee before the CIT (Appeals) who vide order dt.l8th November, 2008 cancelled the penalty observing that the assessment which formed the basis of the penalty order has been set aside by the ITAT with the direction to make assessment afresh and there was no justification for levy of penalty. However, against the order of CIT (Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de order dt.20th March, 2009 granted liberty to the department to initiate fresh penalty proceedings U/s.271(l)(c) of the Act in case they succeed in appeal before the High Court but that appeal has been dismissed by this court, therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed as having become infructuous. Consequently, in the light of above changed circumstances, the present appeal prefer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
