ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3, , PUNE vs. M/S. MANISHA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,, PUNE

These Revenue’s five appeals for A.Y. 2004-05 to 2008-09 arise against the CIT(A)-3 Pune’s common order dt. 04.07.2019 passed in case No. PN/CIT(A)-8/DCIT, Cir-3/145, 146, 147, 148,149/18-19/224; respectively, involving proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

Coming to the Revenue’s identical substantive grievance that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in reversing the Assessing Officer’s action imposing section 271(1)(c) penalty(ies) of Rs.38,19,350/-, Rs.32,65,840/-, Rs.1,27,99,060/-, Rs.1,14,88,520/- and Rs.7,30,56,370/-; assessment yearwise, respectively, we note at the outset that there is hardly any need for us to delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix. Suffice to say, the Assessing Officer has invoked the impugned proceedings in furtherance to CIT(Central) – Pune’s section 263 revision directions dated 27.03.2017 terming the former’s order(s) dated 10.03.2015 dropping the penal action in issue after framing section 153A r.w.s.143(3) assessment(s) dated 29.12.2011; as erroneous ones causing prejudice to interest of the Revenue.

It next transpires with the able assistance coming from the both the parties that this tribunal’s co-ordinate bench’s common order dated 30.07.2018 passed in assessee’s appeals to 1526/PUN/2017 has reversed the CIT’s preceding revision directions (supra) itself. That being the case, we find force in assessee’s arguments that the impugned penalties forming subject matter of judication in all the instant five appeals have no legs to stand. We thus uphold the CIT(A)’s impugned common order deleting the same for this precise reason alone. Ordered accordingly.

The Pr.CIT-2,Pune. 5. नवभधगऩय प्रनतनननध, आयकर अपऩलऩय अनधकरण, “ए” बेंच, पपणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गधर्ा फ़धइल / Guard File. आदेशधनपसधर / BY ORDER, 6. // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपऩलऩय अनधकरण, पपणे / ITAT, Pune.