9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , yet he could not furnish any decisions contrary to the decisions relied upon by Ld CIT(A). Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the decision rendered by Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - Decided in favour of assessee. - Shri B. R. Baskaran, Accountant Member And Smt. Beena Pillai, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. For the Respondent : Shri Manjeet Singh, D.R. ORDER PER BENCH: All the appeals filed by the revenue are directed against common order dated 27.9.2019 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-7, Bangalore and they relate to the assessment years 2005-06 to 2011-12. The revenue is aggrieved with the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act,1961 [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the order passed on 21.8.2018 in ITA No.585/Bang/2014 for assessment year 2011-12. Accordingly, the assessee submitted before Ld. CIT(A) that the additions on which the impugned penalty was levied by the A.O. has since been deleted by the ITAT and hence the impugned penalty levied in all the 7 years are liable to be deleted. 4. Convinced with the submissions made by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalties levied in all the 7 years with the following observations: 4.2 The appellant has filed grounds of appeal challenging the penalty orders both on technical ground and on merit. The appellant has filed detailed submission in support of its grounds of appeal. The appellant also submitted that since the Hon ble ITAT has deleted al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ITAT, the penalty will not survive. The Hon ble Punjab and Haryana HC in the case Smt. Bharto Devi 11 taxmann.com 259 has held that since in quantum proceedings issue had become final in favour of assessee, appeal against imposition of penalty was to be dismissed. 4.4. In view of above, it is held that the penalty orders passed by the A.O. for all these years imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained since the quantum additions for which these penalty u/s 271(1)(c) have been imposed, are already deleted by the order of jurisdictional ITAT. Since, penalties are held to be non sustainable on above account, other contentions raised by the appellant in grounds of appeal are not adjudicated. 5. The revenue is aggrieved by the decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
