9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 891X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of A.O. passing penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c), also ceases to exist and therefore, the penalty order passed by the AO turns infructuous and thus deserves to be deleted, accordingly, the same rightly was deleted - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A.Nos.6048 & 6049/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 16-6-2015 - Shri H.S. Sidhu and Shri J.S. Reddy, JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR For the Respondent : None ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM The Revenue has filed these Appeals against the separate impugned Orders both dated 13.8.2013 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Noida. Since the issue involved in both the appeals are common, hence, we are disposing of the appeals by this consolidated order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee can be given the benefit of section 1O(23C)(iiiad) despite having no registration u/s 12A as registration was granted on 29.9.2009 effective 30.3.2009, having no affiliation to CBSE or any other Educational Board, having no educational infrastructure, and was also not conducting any regular classes as in Doon Foundation. 3. That the appellant craves to leave, add, alter and amend any of the grounds of appeal on or before hearing. 4. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be set aside and the order of the AO be restored. 3. The grounds raised in ITA No. 6049/Del/2013 (A.Y. 2003-04) read as under:- 1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the penalty imposed at ₹ 2,51,664/- u/s 271(1) (c) without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ular classes as in Doon Foundation. 3. That the appellant craves to leave, add, alter and amend any of the grounds of appeal on or before hearing. 4. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be set aside and the order of the AO be restored. 4. The brief facts of the case are the return for assessment year 2003-04 was filed on 24.9.2003 declaring income at Rupees NIL. On perusal of the Balance Sheet it was noticed that the assessee Society during the year has received donation of ₹ 8,85,600/. Further during the assessment proceedings for A. Y. 2004-05, it was seen that as per the balance sheet the assessee had shown corpus fund of ₹ 42,79,700/- as on 1.4.2003. As per returns for A.Y 2002- 03 and 2003-04 and as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 13.8.2013 deleted the penalty in dispute by allowing the appeals filed by the assessee. 5. Now aggrieved with the impugned order, Revenue filed the present Appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Notice of hearing was issued by RPAD to the assessee for 15.6.2015. In response to the same neither the assessee nor its authorized representative appeared to prosecute its cases and nor any application for adjournment was filed. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again. Therefore, we are proceeding exparte qua assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der dated 23/9/2010 in appeal No. 94/2007-08/GZB, Noida had confirmed the action of A.O. and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved with the said decision of CIT(A), Ghazibad the assessee filed second appeal with ITAT, Delhi. The ITAT, Delhi after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case granted the benefit of Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Income Tax Act to the assessee vide order dated 29/2/2012 in appeal No. ITA Nos.1099 1100/0e1l2011. Ld. CIT(A) further observed that in the light of above decision of the ITAT, Delhi the assessee has contended that since the very basis of penalty order uls 271 (1)(c) stands cancelled, the penalty order passed uls 271(1)(c) by JCIT, Range Noida is Iiable to be deleted. Thereafter, Ld. CIT(A) h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
