Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
Before: BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHANMANISH AGARWAL
Assessment Year : 2014-15 Deputy Deputy Commissioner Commissioner of of Vs. ARSS Developers Limited, ARSS Developers Limited, Income Income Tax, Tax, Aayakar Aayakar Plot No.38, Sector-A, Zone- Plot No.38, Sector Bhavan Annexe Building, 4th Bhavan Annexe Building, 4 D, D, Mancheswar Mancheswar Industrial Industrial floor, floor, Room Room No.410(b), No.410(b), Estate, Bhubaneswar Estate, Bhubaneswar Rajaswa Rajaswa Vihar, Vihar, Bhubaneswar PAN/GIR No. No.AABCI 6623 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 23/9/202 24 Date of Pronouncement : 23/9/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the revenue an appeal filed by the revenue against the orde against the order of the ld CIT(A), Bhubaneswar CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2, dated 25.6.2024 in Appeal No.NFAC/2013 25.6.2024 in Appeal No.NFAC/2013- 14/10055461 deleting the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act of 14/10055461 deleting the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act of 14/10055461 deleting the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs.3,08,11,278/- - for the assessment year 2014-15.
Shri Sanjay Kumar, ld CIT DR Sanjay Kumar, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. appeared for the revenue. None represented on behalf of the assessee. However, an application for represented on behalf of the assessee. However, an application for represented on behalf of the assessee. However, an application for adjournment has been filed. Since, the matter can be decided in the adjournment has been filed. Since, the matter can be decided in the adjournment has been filed. Since, the matter can be decided in the P a g e 1 | 3 absence of the assessee, we reject the adjournment petition and proceed to dispose the appeal of the revenue.
The revenue has raised the following grounds:
“1. The order of the ld CIT (A) is erroneous both on the facts and in law. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) is justified in not considering the fact that the department has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High court, Orissa in against the impugned quantum of addition in the assessee’s case for the A.T. 2014015 and the same is pending for adjudication.”
A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) shows that the ld CIT(A) has deleted the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that ITAT vide its order dated 23.12.2021 in assessee’s case for the assessment year 2014-15 has deleted the quantum addition. Pendency of the revenue’s appeal before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the quantum addition does not give ground for reviving the penalty proceedings. This being so, as the quantum addition no more exists, we are of the view that the order of the ld CIT(A) does not call for any interference.
In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed.