9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A). However, it is an admitted fact that, as per the decision of ITAT on the same issue, the addition of quantum, which was the basis for imposing the penalty, has been vacated by setting aside the orders of Ld. CIT(A). Under such facts and circumstances where the quantum addition itself has been deleted, the penalty imposed on the basis of such quantum addition cannot survive. Accordingly, we direct to delete the penalty-initiated u/s 271(1)(c) in the present case. Appeal of assessee allowed. - SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM For the Appellant : Shri S.R. Rao, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR ORDER Per Arun Khodpia, AM: The present appeal is directed against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inated with imposing penalty of Rs. 4,91,969/-. The said penalty order is challenged by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC. However, the appeal of the assessee, without success, has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), now the assessee is before us in the present appeal. 4. At the threshold of the hearing, Ld. AR, on behalf of the assessee, submitted that the penalty initiated by the Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) was arbitrary, bad in law, and facts. An appeal against the said penalty order dated 19.03.2015 has been preferred before the Ld. CIT(A), but the same was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of non-prosecution by the assessee. It is further submitted by Ld. AR that though the assessee appellant could not appear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submission that the issue may be decided on the merits. 6. We have considered the rival submission, perused the material available on record, and the decision of the ITAT in the assessee's own case for the relevant A.Y. regarding quantum of addition by rejecting the claim of the assessee u/s 54B, which was deleted by the ITAT in the said order. As discernible from the orders of the authorities below, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed on the assessee keeping in mind the orders of Ld. AO and confirmation of the disallowance by the Ld. CIT(A). However, it is an admitted fact that, as per the decision of ITAT on the same issue, the addition of quantum, which was the basis for imposing the penalty, has been vacated by setting aside th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
