9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e A.O under Sec. 271(1)(c) would not only be premature, but in fact, the same may also lead to multiplicity of litigation. Accordingly, in all fairness, we are of a strong conviction that in the totality of the facts the order passed by the CIT(A) disposing off the appeal against the penalty imposed by the A.O under Sec. 271(1)(c) requires to be restored to the file of the first appellate authority, with a direction, that the same be taken up after disposing off the quantum appeal for the year in question. We, thus, herein restore the present appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after disposing off the quantum appeal which is stated to be pending before him. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , declaring a total income of (-) ₹ 2,03,44,020/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed as such under Sec. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee company was selected for scrutiny assessment under Sec. 143(2) of the Act. 3. Observing, that the assessee during the year in question had claimed interest expenses of ₹ 2,03,82,070/- the A.O called upon it to furnish the requisite details as regards the said expenditure. As the assessee failed to furnish the details of the aforementioned expenses, the A.O, thus treated the same as an unexplained expenditure within the meaning of Sec. 69C of the Act. Accordingly, the income of the assessee was assessed by the A.O vide his order passed under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty imposed by the A.O under Sec. 271(1)(c) without disposing off the quantum appeal for the year in question that was pending before him. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the persistent requests of the assessee before the CIT(A) for disposal of the quantum appeal before disposing off the appeal against the penalty imposed under Sec. 271(1)(c) had gone in vain. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that in all fairness the matter may be restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to dispose off the appeal afresh after disposing off the quantum appeal that was pending before him. 7. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'D.R') did not raise any objection to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1)(c) and dismissed the appeal. 9. Before us, it is the claim of the ld. A.R that as the quantum appeal is pending disposal before the CIT(A) thus, in all fairness, the impugned order passed by the first appellate authority disposing off the appeal against the penalty imposed by the A.O under Sec. 271(1)(c) may be restored to his file with a direction to take up the same afresh after disposing the quantum appeal. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid claim of the assessee and find substantial force in the same. As the fate of the quantum appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment framed by the A.O under Sec. 144, dated 28.12.2016 will have a bearing on the penalty imposed under Sec. 271(1)(c) thus, in our co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
