9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 271AAA of the Act. Further, on perusal of the order of the CIT (A), we find that the finding of the CIT (A) in this regard is legally right and so upheld. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference and so upheld. Accordingly, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. - ITA No.1257/Del./2015 - - - Dated:- 5-2-2016 - SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri C.S. Anand, CA For the Respondent : Smt. Anima Barnwal, Senior DR ORDER PER A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal, at the instance of the revenue, is filed against the order of CIT (Appeals)-25, New Delhi dated 14.01.2015 for the assessment year 2011. 2. The only effect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 271AAA at ₹ 12,50,000/- on the basis that the case of the assessee is covered under the provisions of section 271AAA and also that the assessee had failed to satisfy the conditions made in the provision of section 271AAA. 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the first appellate authority and the ld. CIT (A) deleted the penalty by observing as under :- I have gone through the submission of the appellant and finding of the AO in the penalty order. The penalty has been levied u/s 271AAA of the I.T. Act. In this regard, Ld. AR of the appellant has agitated the action of AO by producing the details of the order u/s 133 A (3) (ia) of the I.T. Act as per which there is one impounding order in pursuance to survey co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the same were regarding penalty u/s 271 (1) (c). (iv) I am of the considered opinion that the penalty levied by the AO cannot be confirmed. I, therefore, delete the penalty of ₹ 12,50,000/- levied u/s 271 AAA. In view of the above discussion, ground 1, 2 3 of the appeal deserves to be allowed. In the result, appeal is allowed. 6. Ld. DR, relying on the order of the AO , pleaded that the order of the ld. CIT (A) be set aside and that of the AO be restored. 7. On the other hand, the ld. AR for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the ld. CIT (A) and submitted that in the case of assessee, there was no search u/s 132 of the Act, however, the penalty proceedings was initiated u/s 271AAA of the Act and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
