9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 912X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , on the basis of which penalty for concealment was levied, are deleted, by ITAT or otherwise, the penalty cannot stand by itself and is liable to be cancelled. In such a situation, there is no basis at all at present for sustaining the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act , and therefore, in such a case, such penalty cannot survive presently. In view of the foregoing, the penalty levied U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act is hereby cancelled. Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. - ITA No:- 9530/Del/2019 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) - - - Dated:- 30-3-2021 - SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessee by : Shri Rajesh Jain, CA Revenue by : Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT(DR) ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of statement of third party who have been searched u/s 132(1] of the Act and without providing opportunity of cross examination of witness of the Revenue. The Appellant, in response to show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act, requested the Assessing Officer to supply the same. 5. That the appellant craves permission to file additional grounds of appeal and case laws in support of its contention at the time of hearing. (B) The Assessee filed its return of income on 25.09.2009 declaring an income at ₹ 920/-. The Assessment order dated 21.12.2016 was passed by the Assessing Officer ( AO , for short) under Section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( I.T. Act , for short) wherein assessee s income was assessed at ₹ 50,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act; and which is disputed in the present appeal) has already been deleted by ITAT. However, she relied on the orders of the authorities below. (B.1) After hearing both sides, we are of the view that penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T Act levied by AO has no legs to stand at present, when the corresponding additions made by the AO have already been deleted by ITAT vide its aforesaid order dated 22.12.2020 when the aforesaid quantum addition does not survive, the penalty levied U/s 271(1)(C) of I.T. Act on the corresponding quantum addition also cannot survive. We take support from judicial precedent in the case of K.C. Builders vs. ACIT 135 Taxman 461 (SC), in which the Hon ble Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
