9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2014-15. The said order of the ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC arises as against the order dated 10.12.2021 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, by the National Faceless Assessment Centre [ here in after referred as ld. AO ]. 2. In this appeal, the revenue has raised following grounds: - 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the penalty of Rs. 50,78,834/- u/s 271(1)(c) of IT. Act ignoring the fact that department has filed appeal before Hon ble High Court against the order dated 15.03.2023 of Hon ble ITAT and the matter is subjudice? 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that in this case, the assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 17.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 1,42,40,840/-. Assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was completed on 28.12.2016 assessing total income of Rs. 1,69,76,200/-. Thereafter, the Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur passed order u/s. 263 of the Act on 08.03.2019 setting aside the assessment order directing the assessing officer to verify and examine the claim made by the assessee regarding computation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s contended the action of AO for levying penalty of Rs. 50,78,834/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has submitted that the appellant preferred an appeal before the Hon ble ITAT, Jaipur Benches B , Jaipur against the order passed by the PCIT-2, Jaipur u/s 263 of the Act. The Hon ble ITAT, Jaipur Benches B , Jaipur had allowed the appeal in favour of the appellant and disposed off vide order dated 15.03.2023 in ITA No. 274/JPR/2021. The relevant portion of the order i.e Pg 1, Pg 26 27 are extracted below: x x x x 7.3 In pursuant to the decision of Hon ble ITAT, the jurisdictional AO passed the consequential order u/s 254 rws 143(3)/263 of the Act dated 16.06.2023, in which the JAO had determined the income of the appellant at Rs. 1,69,76,200/- as per the original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 28.12.2016. The copy of consequential order is extracted below for ready reference. x x x x 7.4 In view of the above Hon ble ITAT decision quashing the order of PCIT-2, Jaipur and consequential Order passed by JAO, the re-assessment order passed u/s 143(3)/263 of the Act dated 02.12.2019 in pursuant to the order of PCI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as to why the order of the ld. CIT(A) is required to be sustained. The chart of event filed by the assessee reads as under : S. No Particulars Date of order APB 1. Assessment Order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 28.12.2016 01-07 2. Order of Ld. CIT (A) against the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [appeal preferred by assessee] 31.01.2018 3. Order of Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 08.03.2019 10-15 4. Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) in consequence to assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 26.03.2019 08-09 5. Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in consequence to direction of Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 02.12.2019 16-18 6. Penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) in consequence to assessment order u/s 143(3) / 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 10.12. 2021 7 Order of Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal challenging the order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 08.03.2019 15.03.2023 19-45 8 Order u/s 254 r.w.s 143(3)/263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 giving effect of Hon ble ITAT order dated 15.03.2023 16.06.2023 9 Order of Ld. CIT(A) against the Penalty Order passed u/s 271(1)(c) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt (which is not the case here). Moreover, ld.AO himself has recomputed income of assessee in order 254 r.w.s.143/263 of the Income Tax Act, which implies that additions made vide such orders stood deleted. It is submitted that once Revision order u/s 263 itself is quashed and order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.263 (whereby penalty was initiated) has been modified by ld.AO to give effect to the order of Hon'ble ITAT, penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) loses its very foundation and penalty initiated vide such order also has no basis to stand. In such circumstances, Id. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty, which was initiated vide order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.263. In view of above, it is also submitted that since appeal filed by the department (against 263 order) before Hon'ble High Court has not been decided so far, order passed by this Hon'ble ITAT is operative and has been rightly relied upon by ld. CIT(A) while deleting penalty. It is therefore requested that order so passed by ld. CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. 8. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records / decisions: S. No. PARTICULARS PAGE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
