9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) does not survive - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.5978/Del/2019 - - - Dated:- 8-6-2021 - Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Sunil Kumar Tyagi, C.A. For the Revenue : None ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.04.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Noida relating to Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The relevant facts as culled from the material on records are as under: 3. Assessee is a company which is stated to be engaged as Real Estate Developers. Assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 31.03.2014 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The case was selected for scrutiny an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) for Assessment year 2012-13 without appreciating the facts that the appeal against the penalty order was pending with Honerable IT AT (Delhi), therefore impugned order is void ab initio in the eyes of law and need to be struck down. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned penalty order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is null and void and have no legal force to survive because the same is passed without any specific and definite allegation in notice u/s 274 as to under which limb of section 271(1)(c) the same is warranted viz for alleged concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and therefore the impugned order so passed bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any time during the course of appellate proceedings. 4. Before me, Learned AR submitted that though the assessee has raised several ground but the solitary issue is with respect to the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. On the date of hearing, an application for adjournment was moved by Revenue seeking an adjournment to which Learned AR submitted that the issue involved is with respect to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. He further submitted that the penalty is not leviable as the enhancement order of CIT(A) which is the basis for levy of impugned penalty has been adjudicated in favour of the assessee and the Hon ble ITAT has held the enhancement by CIT(A) to be invalid and void-ab-initio. Considering the aforesai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by the CIT(A) to be not tenable and accordingly cancelled the impugned order dated 29.10.2018. He pointed the relevant findings in the order. He therefore submitted that once the enhancement order passed by CIT(A) itself has been set aside the quantum additions does not survive and therefore penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on such additions also does not survive. He placed on record the order of ITAT whereby the enhancement was set aside. He therefore submitted that penalty levied be deleted. 7. I have heard the Learned AR and perused the material on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. I find that CIT(A) vide order passed u/s 250 of the Act dated 29.10.2018 had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
