9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mains no basis at all for levying penalty for concealment - In such a case no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled - Decided against Revenue. - ITA Nos. 511,512,513,514 and 515/Jodh/2013 - - - Dated:- 10-12-2013 - Shri Hari Om Maratha And Shri N. K. Saini,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri N. A. Joshi- D.R. For the Respondent : Shri Shyam Singhvi ORDER Per Bench All these appeals by the department are directed against the separate orders of the Ld. CIT(A), Udaipur each dated 23/8/2013 for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2006-07. In all these appeals, common issue is involved, which relates to deletion of penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal against the assessment order and the Ld. CIT(A) had given certain relief as well as confirmed some additions. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), both the parties i.e. the assessee as well as the department preferred appeals to the I.T.A.T. Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur wherein the additions sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) were deleted. In this case, the Assessing Officer levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, those orders levying the penalties were passed by the Assessing Officer before the outcome of the appeals preferred by both the parties to the ITAT Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur. Against the penalty orders of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeals to the Ld. CIT(A), who deleted the penalties by observing that the ITAT vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dhpur Bench, Jodhpur. The assessee filed appeal in I.T.A. No. 217 to 221/JU/2009 while the department filed the appeal in I.T.A.T. No. 212 to 216/JU/2009 for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2006-07 respectively and the ITAT Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur vide common order dated 15th July, 2010 deleted all the additions. The relevant findings are given in paras 33 and 34 of the said order dated 15th July, 2010, which read as under:- 33. The Assessing Officer also made additions as unexplained debtor by treating the sales differently than the sales recorded in the diaries. As we have already accepted that the sales have been considered by the assessee in working out the income, there can be no separate additions of any separate sales, particular w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
