Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI
ORDER
Per N. K. Saini, AM:
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 21.10.2013 of ld. CIT(A)-XIX, New Delhi.
The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the sustenance of penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
During the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset stated that the quantum addition on the basis of which the impugned penalty was levied by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) was set aside by the ITAT in vide order dated 2 Varsha Spinning Mills Ltd. 27.07.2016 in assessee’s own case. Therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable, since the addition on the basis of which this penalty was levied has been set aside.
In his rival submissions the ld. DR although supported the orders of the authorities below but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee.
We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the addition on the basis of which the impugned penalty was levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was a subject matter of the assessee’s appeal in wherein vide order dated 27.07.2016, the issue has been set aside to the file of the AO and the relevant findings have been given in para 4 of the said order which read as under: “4. In view of the above submissions of the parties we are of the considered opinion that due to one reason or other, the assessee could not get opportunity to place his case properly before the AO and CIT(A) and thus to meet ends of justice and to prevent injury caused to it due to violation of principles of natural justice, we find it appropriate to restore the case to the file of the AO for afresh and de novo framing of assessment order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We order accordingly.”
3 Varsha Spinning Mills Ltd. 6. In the present case, now, it is clear that the addition on the basis of which the impugned penalty was levied, has been set aside to the file of the AO. Therefore, the issue relating to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act being consequential is also set aside to the file of the AO.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 04/07/2017)