Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Date of Hearing : Date of Hearing : 10-08-201 Date of Hearing : Date of Hearing : 201 2016 201 Date of Order : Date of Order : 05 Date of Order : Date of Order : 05 05-09-201 05 201 2016 201
ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER PER H.S. SIDHU PER PER H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU : : : : JM H.S. SIDHU
Assessee has filed these two Appeals against the respective impugned orders both dated 06.1.2014 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-XVII, New Delhi relevant to assessment years 2007-08 & 2008-09 respectively. Since both the appeals pertain to same assessee, hence, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.
The grounds raised in (AY 2007-08) read as under:-
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Worthy CIT(A) in Appeal No. 03/12-13 dated 9.4.2012 has erred in passing that order in contravention of the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) vide para 3 of his order, has erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 83,39,322/- on account of disallowance of deduction of Rs. 2,47,75,170/- claimed by the appellant u/s. 80- IA(4) of the Act even when the appeal there against the said quantum assessment is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble ITAT, F Bench.
3. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same.
The facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience.
At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that the additions on which the alleged penalty has been levied has been set aside by the ITAT to the file of the AO, in assessee’s own case in respect of the same assessment year i.e. 2007-08 passed in vide order dated 22.7.2016. In this regard, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed the copy of the aforesaid ITAT Order dated 22.7.2016 before us and stated that in view of the decision taken in the Order dated 22.7.2016, the penalty in dispute is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
On the contrary, Ld. DR has relied upon the orders of the revenue authorities.
We have heard both the counsel and perused the relevant records, especially the orders passed by the Revenue authorities alongwith the ITAT Order dated 22.7.2016 passed in in assessee’s own case for the asstt. year 2007-08. We find that the additions on which the penalty has been levied by the AO has been set aside by the Tribunal vide its order dated 22.7.2016, therefore, we find considerable force in the contention of the assessee’s counsel that the penalty in dispute is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence, we cancel the same by accepting the Appeal filed by the Assessee. However, the AO is at liberty to initiate penalty proceedings, if necessary, on the outcome of the set aside quantum addition, in accordance with law. In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed.
The grounds raised in (AY 2008-09) read as under:-
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Worthy CIT(A) in Appeal No. 85/10-11 dated 03.1.2011 has erred in passing that order in contravention of the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Worthy CIT(A)
has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 2,21,72,109/- by disallowing legitimately claimed deduction u/s. 80-IA(4) of the Act.
3. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same.
The facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience.
At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that ITAT in assessee’s own case in (AY 2007-08) vide order dated 22.7.2016 has set aside the similar and identical issue to the file of the AO for fresh assessment proceedings, hence, he requested that similarly the present issue in dispute may also be set aside to the file of the AO with the same directions. In this regard, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed the copy of the aforesaid ITAT Order dated 22.7.2016.
On the contrary, Ld. DR has relied upon the orders of the revenue authorities.
We have heard both the counsel and perused the relevant records, especially the orders passed by the Revenue authorities alongwith the ITAT Order dated 22.7.2016 passed in in assessee’s own case for the asstt. year 2007-08. We find that similar issue has already been set aside by the ITAT to the file of the AO for fresh assessment proceedings vide order dated 22.7.2016. Therefore, respectfully following the similar reasoning as contained in ITAT ‘F’ Bench, New Delhi Order dated 22.7.2016 passed in ITA No. 5724/Del/2010 (AY 2007-08) in assessee’s own case, we restore the issue in dispute to the file of the AO with the similar directions, as contained in 5 ITAT order dated 22.7.2016, as aforesaid. In the result, the Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the (AY 2007-08) is allowed in the aforesaid manner and (AY 2008-09) is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 05/09/2016.