INCOME TAX OFFICER-23(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SANJAY J AHUJA, MUMBAI

The only grievance of the Revenue in its appeal is that the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that quantum additions/disallowance were deleted by the Hon'ble ITAT vide

Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that, in this case the Hon'ble Bench had deleted the additions/disallowances made in the Assessment Order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act which was the basis for levying the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that since the Tribunal deleted the additions/disallowance in the quantum proceedings the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) will not survive and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that the appeal filed by the Revenue against ITAT order in deleting the additions/disallowances has been rejected by the Hon'ble High Court.

Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer.

We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. It is the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) that the Tribunal had deleted the additions/disallowances made in the quantum proceedings by the Coordinate Bench in ITA.No. 5731/Mum/2014 dated 09.12.2016 and all the additions/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer and as confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) stand deleted by the Tribunal. This finding of the Ld.CIT(A) has not been disputed by the Revenue. Therefore, when

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.