9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 597X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 - SUPREME COURT] in which it has been held that if addition is restored to the Assessing Officer, then penalty should also be restored. In Sanjay Gupta vs. CIT [ 2014 (5) TMI 860 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has also held that where the quantum has been remanded to the Assessing Officer, the question of penalty on account of the said amount being treated as undisclosed income, should also be rem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Revenue in this appeal is the deletion of penalty amounting to ₹ 4,50,12,760 u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act‟) levied by the Assessing Officer but deleted by the Ld. CIT(Appeals). 3. At the very outset, the Ld. AR for the assessee submitted with the permission of the Bench that in this appeal preferred by the Revenue, quantum appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidering the totality of facts and issues in the case while complying with the principles of natural justice. Our view in restoring the penalty to the Ld. CIT(Appeals) is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Mohatram Farooqui vs. CIT (SC) 2010-TIOL-23-SC-IT in which it has been held that if addition is restored to the Assessing Officer, then penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
