9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g officer has been deleted, therefore, the impugned penalty was not leviable and the Ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the same. We, therefore, do not see any merit in these appeals of the Department. See KC BUILDERS AND ANOTHER VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [ 2004 (1) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the ITAT vide order dated 6.2.2018 in ITA Nos. 46 & 47/Chd/2015 for the assessment year 2005-06 & 2006-07 respectively. Copy of the said letter was furnished which is placed on record. It was pointed out that the Ld. CIT(A) also deleted the impugned penalties for this reason that the quantum additions had been deleted by the ITAT. 5. In his rival submissions, the Ld. Sr. DR although supported t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT, the penalty levied against the same has no legs to stand and is accordingly ordered to be deleted for both the years A.Y. 2005-06 and A.Y. 2006-07." 7. It is well settled that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied when the additions on the basis of which said penalty is levied, has been directed to be deleted. In the present case, it is noticed that this Bench of the Tribunal vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the Assessing officer has been deleted, therefore, the impugned penalty was not leviable and the Ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the same. We, therefore, do not see any merit in these appeals of the Department.
10. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
(Order Pronounced in the Court on 24/04/2019) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
