9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 1031X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the order of CIT (A)-9, Mumbai dated 26.8.2010 for the assessment year 1992-93. In this appeal, Revenue raised only one ground which reads as under: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 on the basis of deletion of the quantum additions by ITAT in favour of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act and levied minimum penalty of ₹ 44,31,300/- vide order dated 30.3.2009. It is equivalent to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on the concealed income of ₹ 1,25,91,184/-. Against the said penalty order of the AO, assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). During the proceedings before the CIT(A), it was submitted that the assessee carried the litigation on addition in quantum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition was deleted by the ITAT. Thus, Ld DR fairly mentioned that the Tribunal make take a view on the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. On the other hand, none appeared on behalf of the assessee to represent. 5. We have heard the Ld DR, perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities and the papers filed before us. We have also gone through the contents of para 2 and its sub-para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITAT whereby quantum addition has been deleted by the ITAT. Therefore, I am of the view that there exists no ground for levy of concealment penalty in this case. Hence, penalty order is cancelled. 6. The above paragraphs of the CIT(A) are categorical in mentioning that the Tribunal deleted the additions on merits. In fact, the ground raised by the revenue also indicates that the assessee got ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
