2015 (10) TMI 2498

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... this discussion, we do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order deleting penalty. - Decided against revenue
SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant by : Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Sr. DR For the Respondent : Shri Rajesh Arora, FCA ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member: This appeal is directed by Revenue against the order dated 28.05.2013 passed by ld. CIT(A)-XIII, New Delhi, challenging the deletion of penalty amounting to ₹ 22,99,380/- imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2007-08. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the trading business electronic components. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s of ₹ 3,00,51,810/-. He, therefore, made overall addition of ₹ 68,31,195/- (Rs.55,35,994 + ₹ 12,77,202) on estimated basis and on different reason. This order of the ld. CIT(A) stood confirmed by ITAT vide order dated 21.11.2014. The Assessing Officer, consequently, imposed penalty of ₹ 22,99,380/- on adhoc addition made by the ld. CIT(A) alleging that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty so imposed by the AO stood deleted by the ld. first appellate authority vide impugned order. It is this order, which is assailed by the Revenue in this appeal before us. 4. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR argued that the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the penalty imposed by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ere was neither any concealment of facts nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars by assessee. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of CIT v. Navinchandra & Co. (222 Taxman 156 and New Holland Tractors (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT in ITA No. 182/2002 and 255/2003 (Delhi H.C.) and CIT vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 322 ITR 316. 6. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the case laws cited by the assessee and we find no incongruity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). It is notable that the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer on the basis of addition made on account of bogus purchases stood collapsed at the first appellate stage itself in the quantum appeal. The penalty proc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X