9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2019 - Shri H.S. Sidhu, Judicial Member And Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Ms. Shaily Gupta, Sh. Akshay Uppal, CA For the Revenue : Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM Revenue has filed this appeal against the impugned order dated 29.6.2016 passed by Ld.CIT(A)-26, New Delhi on the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law deleting penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) when the matter related to the quantum addition is sub-judice before the Hon ble High Court on the appeal of the Revenue because no legal remedy would be avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are in the nature of advancement of General Public Utility which is the last limb. Now only question is to be decided whether activities are in the nature of trade, commerce or business or not. For the same, AD has very categorically discussed the instance in the body of order by mentioning the name if the parties who had deducted TDS on various services offered by the appellant. Further, the appellant has generated surplus of ₹ 1.09 crore as well as earned interest income on the fixed deposit which has been held as taxable by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Club. So after considering the facts of the case in totality, in my opinion ground no. 1 to ground no. 2.8 of the appeal deserve to be dismissed . For pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of hearing, Ld. DR relied upon the penalty order passed by the AO. 4. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that since the addition on which the penalty has been imposed has already been deleted by the ITAT, the penalty in dispute does not survive. In this regard, he draw our attention towards the finding of the Ld. First Appellate Authority and requested that the Appeal filed by the Revenue may be dismissed. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the order of the Ld. CIT(A). We find that Ld. CIT(A) vide para no. 6 7 at page no. 3 of his impugned order has held as under:- 6. I have gone through the penalty order, submissions of the assessee, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . After going through the aforesaid finding given by the ld. CIT(A in para no. 6 7 at page no. 3 of the impugned order dated 29.6.2016, as reproduced above, we are of the considered view that the addition on which the penalty has been initiated by the AO has already been deleted by the ITAT as mentioned in the aforesaid paragraphs. Therefore, the penalty in dispute is not sustainable/survive. Hence, we are of the considered view that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed a well reasoned order on the basis of the ITAT order, which does not need any interference on our part, therefore, we uphold the same and accordingly, reject the grounds raised by the Revenue. 6. In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismisse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
