INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, AAYAKR BHAWAN, SIRASWADI ROAD, NR TV. CENTRE, JALNA vs. MAHESH NAGARI SAHAKARI PATHSANSTHA LIMITED, SAROJINIDEVI ROAD, JALNA

ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

raised by the Revenue are as under : “i) On the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deletion of penalty u/s 270A of the Act as levied by the AO. Mahesh Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha [R] ii) On the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty u/s 270A by allowing deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee has earned interest on investment which is not allowable for such deduction. iii) Any other ground of appeal that may be urged at the time of hearing.” Findings & Analysis :

2. We have heard ld.DR for the Revenue. It is observed that ld.CIT(A) has held as under: “6. Held:- I have perused the order of the Assessing officer and examined the reply of the assessee. Since, the quantum appeal has been decided in favour of the appellant vide appellate order dated 26.09.2023 in appeal No.NFAC/2017-18/10088162 for A.Y.2018-19, the penalty levied u/s 270A becomes infructuous.”

2.1 Thus, ld.CIT(A) has held that since the quantum appeal has been decided in favour of the assessee penalty becomes infructuous. ITAT in has decided the quantum appeal in favour of assessee. Therefore, there is no mis- reporting, hence, the penalty is not maintainable.