SHUBHALAXMI DHIRENDRA HUILGOL ,GADAG vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , GADAG

Smt. Shubhalaxmi Dhirendra Huilgol, Burbure plot, Nr. Rajeev The Income Tax Officer, Gandhi Nagar, vs. Ward – 1, Gadag, Gadag. Karnataka – 582 101. PAN: ADGPH5363Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Ms. R. Mrinalini, Advocate Respondent by : Smt. Srinandini Das, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 04.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 07.12.2018 O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

by the assessee are as under. “1. The order passed by the Learned CIT (Appeals), Hubli is illegal, bases and opposed to the facts of the case.

2. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in not considering the plea of the assessee that the Penal proceedings initiated are illegal as the Notice u/s 274 does not specify as to which limb of the section 271(1)(c) the Learned ITO is initiating the penal proceedings. The decision of the Ficinible Supreme Court in CIT and Anr Vs. SSA's Emerald Meadown in SLID No. 11485/.2016 Dt. 05/08/2-016 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High in CIT Vs. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory reported in 359 1.-FR 565 has not been considered by the learned CIT (Appeals) even the same were brought to the notice of the learned CIT Appeals.

3. The assessee prays leave to add any more grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”

3. In course of hearing of this appeal, the ld. AR of assessee has submitted one memo signed by him on 27.08.2018 and as per this memo, this is the Page 2 of 2 submission of the assessee that for the same year, an appeal was filed by the revenue also by challenging the same order of CIT(A) in allowing the assessee’s appeal, in deleting the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 12,90,940/- and on 01.08.2018, such departmental appeal was dismissed because of low tax effect. It has been submitted in the memo that because of the dismissal of the appeal of the revenue, the present appeal of the assessee has become infructuous. In course of hearing before us, the ld. AR of assessee submitted that under these facts, the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed as withdrawn. The ld. DR of revenue had no objection to the assessee’s request for withdrawal of the appeal and hence we dismiss the appeal of the assessee as withdrawn.