9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r And Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri D.C. Garg, CA For the Department : Shri Dayainder Singh Sindhu, CIT(DR) ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, preferred by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-28, New Delhi, dated 25.01.2019, in sustaining the penalty of 18,80,120/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), pertaining to the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28 ( Ld. CIT(A) ) under Section 250 of the Act is bad in law and on the facts and circumstances of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant was not provided a fair opportunity to defend its case. 6. Without prejudice, the penalty order passed by the Ld. AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) is unsustainable on the facts and circumstances of the respective merits of the quantum issues /additions in the assessment order / appellate order. 7. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and liable to be set aside as the same has been passed without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and has been passed mechanically without application of mind. The Ld. CIT(A) has chosen to pass the impugned order in utter ignorance of the submissions made by the appellant. 8. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and liable to be set aside as the same has been pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the ITAT Delhi Bench G vide order dated 31.08.2020 and has deleted the disallowance of Rs. 60,84,530/- being expenses pertaining to Uniworld Garden-1 project. The Revenue s appeal being ITA no. 4253/Del/2016 has been dismissed by the ITAT Delhi Bench G vide order dated 29.07.2019. Learned counsel submitted that since the additions made by the AO have been deleted in quantum appeal, the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) cannot survive and the impugned penalty levied by the AO may be deleted. 5. Learned DR was fair enough to admit the aforesaid factual position. He, however, submitted that the Department has not given up its stand. 6. In view of the above admitted factual position, since the additions made by the AO have been deleted in q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
