9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... knowledged in the impugned appellate order. It is trite law that when the very foundation of the penalty ceases to exist, the penalty itself cannot survive. The manner in which the CIT(A) has handled this case raises serious concerns about the casual and mechanical approach adopted in discharging appellate functions. CIT(A) is expected to act as an independent quasi-judicial authority and is duty-bound to pass a reasoned and speaking order addressing the contentions of both parties. In the present case, he has failed in this fundamental duty. We take strong exception to such an approach and direct that a copy of this order be forwarded to the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CCIT), Ahmedabad, for appropriate administrative revie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quantum proceedings vide order dated 14.10.2019. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us with the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts of the case, in dismissing the appeal which is wholly unlawful and against the principles of natural justice and equity. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) NFAC, erred in confirming order made u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is bad in law, ultra vires and without appreciating the facts, submission and evidences in the proper perspective which, is liable to be annulled. 2. That the CIT(A) has failed to independently apply their mind to the facts of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity and therefore eligible for deduction under Section 80-IB and the entire addition was deleted, leading to no difference between returned income and assessed income. The AR also placed a copy of the ITAT order which was also submitted to CIT(A) along with the submission dated 16.10.2024, but it was completely ignored by the CIT(A). The AR argued that since the addition itself has been deleted, the penalty levied on such addition cannot survive. The AR also stated that the CIT(A) failed to apply independent reasoning and merely endorsed the findings of the AO and the assessee's submission dated 16.10.2024 was completely ignored, which is a serious violation of natural justice. 6. The Departmental Representative (DR) conceded the facts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f CIT(A) fails to meet this fundamental requirement of adjudication. 7.4. This Bench vide order dated 14.10.2019 in ITA No.2837/Ahd/2014, had already deleted the quantum addition of Rs. 12,18,000/-, which formed the basis for the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. This order was placed on record before the CIT(A), yet it was not even acknowledged in the impugned appellate order. It is trite law that when the very foundation of the penalty ceases to exist, the penalty itself cannot survive. 7.5. The manner in which the CIT(A) has handled this case raises serious concerns about the casual and mechanical approach adopted in discharging appellate functions. The CIT(A) is expected to act as an independent quasi-judicial authority and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
