9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ale, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Ms.Jacinta. CIT. DR For the Responden : Shri. Rahul Makani. AR ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The revenue has filed the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-21 Mumbai, passed u/s 271(1)(c) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal. 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty levied by the AO without considering the merits of the issue and merely on the ground that the ITAT has deleted the quantum addition. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the CIT(A). Whereas, the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, findings of the A.O. and the submissions of the assessee and finds that the assessees quantum appeal for said Assesseement year was allowed by the Hon ble Tribunal and referred at page 4 Para 6 of the order. Further the CIT(A) relied on the Hon ble Supreme court and the High Court decisions and observed that since the additions forming the basis of levy of penalty itself have been set aside by the Hon ble Tribunal, therefore the penalty imposed u/sec 271(1)(c) of the Act does not survive and allowed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue has filed an appeal with the Hon ble Tribunal. 5.At the time of hearing, the Ld.DR submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g in the reasons communicate to the assessee through the-communication dated 05.09.2011 (supra). Elaborating on this point, the learned A.R. submitted that if the assessee was made aware of such reasons, it would have explained to the AO that the bogus sales being referred to by the AO of Shri Anil M. Gupta have since been accepted as genuine by the order of the CIT(A) in that case dated 15.10.2010. In this context, he has referred to pages 89 to 125 4f the Paper Book wherein the said order of the ClT(A) was placed wherein not only the bogus sales stated by the AO has been accepted as genuine but even the retraction of the Director Shri Shailesh Shah has been upheld. It was, therefore, contended that non-furnishing of the actual reasons pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itiating the reassessment proceedings. 12. Thus, on the aforesaid aspect itself, we hold that the reassessment order is bad in law and is required to be quashed. We hold so. 13. Before parting, we may say that the other pleas raised by the assessee on the issue of validity of reopening of assessment are not being gone into as the same are rendered academic in nature. Since we have already quashed the reassessment, the other grounds raised by the assessee on the merits of additions therein are also rendered academic and are not being adjudicated. Therefore, we allow the appeal of the assessee in the context of ground No. 1(1). 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as above. 8. The Ld.DR fairly acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
