9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee. We further find that as the appeal of the department against the aforesaid order of the CIT(A) had been dismissed by the Tribunal, therefore, the same had attained finality. Thus as now when the very quantum addition in itself had been deleted on merits by the CIT(A), and the said order on having been dismissed by the Tribunal had thereafter got the stamp of finality, the penalty pertaining to the said addition therefore cannot survive - Decided in favour of assessee - I.T.A. No. 601/Mum/2015 - - - Dated:- 28-2-2017 - SHRI G.S. PANNU, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM For The Assessee : Shri V.D. Parmar For The Revenue : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal has been filed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laced on decision in case of ACIT vs. Arnav A Mehta ITAT Mumbai Bench A decision ITA No.2742/Mumbai/2011 dated 12.09.2012. (5).On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) erred in not following the ratio of decision of Reliance Petro Products (2010) which is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case as appellant has disclosed all particulars of income and no fact has been concealed. (6). On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming penalty u/s.271(1)(C) without appreciating the facts that in return of income appellant has disclosed F O and commodity transactions separately in P L account and as such appellant has disclosed all particulars of income. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led the order of the A.O imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) before the CIT(A), who sustained the same and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) therein sustaining the penalty of ₹ 6,43,360/- imposed by the A.O u/s. 271(1)(c) had carried the matter in appeal before us. That at the very outset of the hearing of the appeal the Ld. Authorized representative (for short A.R ) conceded that though the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution by relying on the order of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of : CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) , but as he had thereafter proceeded with and also dismissed the appeal on merits, therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally deleted on merits, therefore the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the penalty imposed by the A.O u/s 271(1)(c) does not survive and was liable to be struck down. That on the other hand the Ld. Departmental Representatives (for short D.R ) though acceded to the aforesaid factual position, but averred that as penalty proceeding are separate and distinct from the assessment proceedings, therefore merely on the count that the quantum addition made by the AO had been deleted in appeal, the penalty imposed in the hands of the assessee was not liable to be automatically set aside. 6. We have heard the ld. Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material produced before us. We find that it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
