Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”
Before: HON’BLE SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SH. G. MANJUNATHA, AM
M/s Regency Hotels DCIT 5(3)(1) Room No. 519, 5th floor, Pvt. Ltd. 101, Prime Corporate Aayakar Bhavan, बिधम/ Park, Near ITC Grand Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Maratha Hotel, Sahar Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 099 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AABCR9766J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri D. G. Pansari, DR by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Hari Raheja, AR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 30.04.2019 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R
Per Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member:
The present Appeal filed by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeal) – 10, Mumbai dated 22.12.17 for AY 2011-12. M/s Regency Hotels Pvt. Ltd.
At the very outset Ld. AR drawn our attention to the order of Hon’ble ITAT in quantum appeal bearing for AY 2011-12 dated 16.08.17 in assessee’s own case, wherein the additions have already been deleted.
On perusal of the said order of Hon’ble ITAT, we find that the addition has already been deleted by allowing the ground of appeal
in favour of the assessee by holding that assessee had set up its business during the year and therefore had incurred legitimate expenses, therefore the same were allowed. This order referred by assessee has attained finality as revenue has not placed on record any material to show that appeal against the said order dated 16.08.17 has been filed before Hon’ble High Court. The penalty in the present case was borne out from the additions made in the order of assessment and since the additions have already been deleted by ITAT, therefore there remains no basis at all for levying penalty and hence in such a case no penalty can survive and is thus liable to be cancelled. On this proposition, we rely upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. C. Builder & another vrs. ACIT 265 ITR 562. M/s Regency Hotels Pvt. Ltd.
4. In view of the above facts, circumstances and discussion, we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) in directing the AO to delete the penalty. It is ordered accordingly.