GTL LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 9, MUMBAI

O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM These appeals have been filed by the assessee against the two orders dated 13.09.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-37 (for short ‘the CIT(A), Mumbai, for the assessment year 2004-05. Vide first order the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal filed against assessment order u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’) and vide second order the Ld. CIT (A) has partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against penalty order passed u/s 271 (1) (c) of Act. The assessee has challenged the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) on the following effective grounds:- Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ground No. 1 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty has been initiated vide notice u/s 274 without any specific charge and hence the notice and the order passed u/s 271 (1) (c) is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction.

2. The Appellant humbly prays that the Assessing Officer be directed to delete the penalty levied u/s 271 (1) (c).

Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 Ground No. II: Levy of penalty on alleged bogus purchases 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO by levying penalty on additions made to income computed u/s 115JB of the Act on account of alleged bogus purchases.

2. The Appellant humbly prays that the Assessing Officer be directed to delete the penalty levied u/s 271 (1) (c). The assessee has challenged the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) on the following effective grounds:- Ground No. I: Reopening of assessment under section 148 is bad in law.

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO) of reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act beyond a period of 4 years.

2. The Appellant prays that the AO be directed that re-opening of assessment under section 147 of the Act is void-ab-initio and / or otherwise bad-in-law.

Without prejudice to Ground No. I Ground No. II Disallowance of depreciation on purported bogus purchases.

At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee wants to withdraw the said appeals in view of the fact that the assessee has filed compounding applications before the concerned authority and the same have been accepted. The Ld. Departmental Representative did not oppose the submissions made by the Ld. counsel. Hence, in view of the submissions made by the Ld. counsel for the assessee, we allow the request made on behalf of the assessee and dismiss the appeals as withdrawn. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.