9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1035X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee. - I.T.A. No.6039/DEL/2016, CO No.97/DEL/2019 - - - Dated:- 31-7-2019 - Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member And Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Surender Pal, Sr.D.R. For the Respondent : Shri K.M. Mehta, CA ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee against the impugned order dated 28.09.2016, passed by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXVI, New Delhi in relation to the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) for the Assessment Year 2008-09. The Revenue has challenged the deletion of penalty of ₹ 1,28 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to ₹ 22,75,188/- was allowed and addition of remaining ₹ 3,77,41,953/- was made. For the above disallowances made, the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) were initiated. The said addition however stood confirmed by the ITAT. 3. Before the ld. CIT (A) it was submitted that the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the Assessment Year 2006-07, precisely on the same issue on account of similar addition of leasehold improvement which was claimed as Revenue expenditure and treated as capital in nature by the Assessing Officer has deleted the said penalty. Ld. CIT (A) following the said order of the Tribunal dated 27.07.2012 has deleted the penalty. 4. After hearing both the parties, we find that precis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opinion with respect to claim of assessee. Mere non filing of appeal by assessee against the additions made by AO cannot be said to be admission by assessee of having submitted wrong claim. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that penalty imposed by AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT (A) is not justified. 5. Since there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, following the same precedence, we confirm the deletion of penalty and accordingly, Revenue s appeal is dismissed. 6. In Cross Objection, the assesse has challenged the penalty on technical grounds that Assessing Officer in the show-cause notice has not specified the charge under which limb he is initiating penalty proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
