“levy of penalty”

PenaltySection 271Section 2715,057 judgments

The decision most relied on for levy of penalty is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on levy of penalty

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court

2,590

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.

322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court

2,228

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

Ashok Pai v. CIT

292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court

812

citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

Rashmikant Kundalia v. Union of India

54 Taxmann.com 200 · 2015 · High Court

702

citing judgments

Section 234E, levying late fees for delayed filing of TDS statements under section 200(3), is constitutionally valid and constitutes a compensatory fee, not a punitive penalty. Before treating any person as an assessee-in-default, an opportunity of being heard must be provided.

Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT

291 ITR 519 · 2007 · Supreme Court

565

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to strike out the inapplicable limb (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) from the standard proforma, indicating non-application of mind. The initial burden of proving concealment or inaccurate particulars rests on the Revenue.

CIT v. Kaushalya

216 ITR 660 · 1995 · High Court

511

citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not invalidated by the Assessing Officer's failure to strike off irrelevant portions in the show cause notice, provided the assessee understood the exact charge and suffered no prejudice, indicating an application of mind by the AO.

CIT v. Manu Engg

122 ITR 306 · 1980 · High Court

505

citing judgments

When levying a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the Assessing Officer must clearly specify whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. An ambiguous notice or order using "and/or" for these limbs, or a standard proforma without striking irrelevant clauses, indicates non-application of mind and renders the penalty unsustainable.

Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa

83 ITR 26 · 1972 · Supreme Court

502

citing judgments

An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation results from quasi-criminal proceedings. Penalty is not ordinarily imposed unless the party acted deliberately in defiance of law, was guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct, or acted in conscious disregard of their obligation.

Judgments citing levy of penalty

Ashok Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1082/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 271

Delhi dated 22.02.2023 pertaining to A.Y. 2013-14 to 2016-17. 2. The common grievance in all these appeals relates to the levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the Act though the quantum of penalty may differ in each year. 3. Since under lying facts are identical ... evaded by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 7. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the assessment order and also the order levying the penalty read with order of the first appellate authority to confirm the levy. 8. We are of the considered view that initially the AO has initiated

DCIT, CC-14, New Delhi vs. Shivnandan Buildcon Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1891/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Verma, CIT- DR

Section 144Section 153ASection 153DSection 264Section 271(1)(c)

DCIT vs. Shivnanda Buildcon (P) Ltd., New Delhi- AY: 2007-08 case as noted above, thereby, removing the foundation of levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, impugned penalty is liable to be deleted. Grounds taken by the revenue are, thus, dismissed. In the result

Smt. Laxmi Devi Chandwani, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, we are inclined to set aside the order of the Ld

ITA 99/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Rpr/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Laxmi Devi Chandwani V Income Tax Officer Agrasen Chowk S Ward-1(1), Bilaspur Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh-495 001. Chhattisgarh-495 001 Pan: Agmpc 8368H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.R. Rao, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 21/08/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 20.02.2023 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Ay 2014-15, Arises From The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271B Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 24.09.2022. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Arbitrary, Bad In Law & Facts. 2. That The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271B Imposed By Learned Assessing Officer.”

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

Income Tax (Appeals) is arbitrary, bad in law & facts. 2. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in law & facts in confirming the levy of penalty U/s 271B imposed by Learned Assessing Officer.” 2 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee who is an individual

Saleem Ahmed Khan, Boon Electronic, Corporation Market Naudara Bridge, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No 88/Jab/2022 is not maintainable, ITA

ITA 88/JAB/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur14 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri H.S Modh, Advocate,ARFor Respondent: Shri.Rajesh Kumar Gupta, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), it was brought to the knowledge that the assessee on levy of penalty in non compliance of notice U/sec142(1) of the Act on 03.05.2019 has opted VSVS 2020 and the appeal was disposed ... Whereas in respect of other notices, we found that the CIT(A) has confirmed the levy of penalty and has dismissed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved ITA Nos. 88, 89 & 98/Jab/2022 Saleem Ahmed Khan, Jabalpur. by the CIT(A) order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal

Kavita Jasjit Singh, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Cir-3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1981/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved a/wFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule

Section 250Section 270A

pressed. Kavita Jasjit Singh ITA no.1981/Mum./2023 7. The only dispute raised by the assessee, in the present appeal, is against the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act. 8. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee ... income only after the case was selected for scrutiny. Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee had under-reported her income and accordingly levied a penalty of Rs.1,75,824, under section 270A of the Act. 9. In the appeal before the learned CIT(A), despite notices being issued

Smt. Dipalben Manish Patel, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of our observations above

ITA 215/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 215/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Dipalben Manish Patel 4-502, Near Maharashtra Mandal, Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Alupp3271B

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

used conjunction “or” to mention both limbs, i.e, concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and charge for levy of penalty was not explicitly clear from notice, then, the same was to be held as bad in law and penalty was liable to be set aside

Ramakrishna Agencies, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 31/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam13 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 30 & 31/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18) Ramakrishna Agencies, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-1(1), Pan: Aajfr 3436 Q Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(10)Section 271B

considered the above income of Rs. 4,13,353/- as underreported as per the provisions of section 270A(10) of the Act and levied a penalty of Rs. 200% on the tax amounting to Rs. 2,55,452/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO levying the penalty ... appeal, the assessee has raised three grounds of appeal however, the only issue raised in this appeal is with respect to levy of penalty of Rs. 2,55,452/- U/s. 270A of the Act. 4. Before us, at the outset, the Ld. AR argued that the assessee has not underreported

Ramakrishna Agencies, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 30/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam13 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(10)Section 271B

Vakrangee Foundation, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Raipur

ITA 196/RPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Rpr/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vakrangee Foundation Vs Assessing Officer, 103, 1St Floor, Golden Park, Vip Exemption Circle, Estate, Vidhan Sabha Road, Raipur (Cg) Raipur (Cg) Pan: Aaaav8441K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri G.S.Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Parakash Sharma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/09/2023

For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Parakash Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 250Section 271Section 271BSection 44A

Prayed to delete the penalty. 2. That under the facts and the law, the learned CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271 B at Rs. 1,50,000/- by the learned AO for the reason that addition of Rs.8,00,000/- (added

Santosh Jain, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 148/RPR/2023[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Sept 2023AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 144, 146 & 148/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1995-96 Santosh Jain Opp. P.N Tiwari, Gandhi Chowk, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Afypj6194D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

which the immunity granted under section 245H remained in force; and (iii) any period during which a proceeding under this Chapter for the levy of penalty is stayed by an order or injunction of any court, shall be excluded.” 13. Ostensibly, a perusal of the aforesaid statutory provision reveals that

Santosh Jain, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 146/RPR/2023[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Sept 2023AY 1994-95

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

Santosh Jain, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 144/RPR/2023[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Sept 2023AY 1993-94

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward, Behror

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 230/JPR/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Sept 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Garg (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271BSection 275Section 44A

Therefore, the ground of appeal is partly allowed as discussed above.” 6. As the assessee did not receive any favor from the levy of penalty and was slightly reduced to Rs. 87,299/- against levy at 5 Subhash Chand Saini vs. ITO Rs.90,874/-. The assessee has challenged the balance ... levy of penalty of Rs.87,299/- confirmed by ld. CIT(A) before this tribunal on the grounds as raised hereinabove. Apropos to the grounds so raised the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has placed their written submission which is extracted in below; “As per Sec 44AD

Jaypee Cement Corporation Limited, Noida vs. ACIT Circle 5(1)(1), Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and stay application of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1070/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Jaypee Cement Vs. Acit, Corporation Ltd, Circle-5(1)(1), Sector-128, Gautam Noida Budh Nagar, Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacz2168D

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 32A

only effective issue to be decided in the instant appeal is as to whether the ld CIT(A) was justified in upholding the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused ... assessee. 15. Further, the ld. AR argued that, in any case, a mistake of a professional cannot invite an assessee with the levy of penalty and for which, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Deep

Bahar Ahmed, Bijnor vs. ACIT, Najibabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1004/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[A.Y. 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri PC Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 271Section 274

NFAC, Delhi pertaining to A.Y. 2014-15. 2 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the NFAC erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.5,97,835/-. 3. The roots for the levy of penalty lie in the assessment

M/S Sangeeta Rushikesh Doiphode, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1976/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Smt. Sangeeta Rushikesh Ito-15(3)(1), Doiphode, Room No. 456, 4Th Floor, 8/158, Navrang Society, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Chaitanya Nagar, Mumbai, Mumbai-400020. Santacruz (East) S.O. 400055. Pan No. Achpd 5219 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Nayanjyoti Nath, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

penalty should not be levied. The submissions filed by the submissions filed by the assessee were rejected and the Assessing Officer levied the penalty rejected and the Assessing Officer levied the penalty rejected and the Assessing Officer levied the penalty observing as under: “Order under section ... show 142(1) dated 08.02.2022. However, in the show-cause notice dated cause notice dated 05.08.2022 for levy of pena 05.08.2022 for levy of penalty, there was a mention of the non lty, there was a mention of the non- compliance compliance of of the the show-cause show cause

Intergreon Munaged Solutions (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 12(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 586/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved

Section 250Section 92D

provisions of the Act, the draft assessment order in no way culminates to arriving at the demand and also the levy of penalty. It can be inferred from the act of the A.O. in issuing the demand notice along with the draft assessment order that the demand got crystalised

Integreon Managed Solutions (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2307/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved

Section 250Section 92D

ITO 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Integreon Managed Solution (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2095/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved

Section 250Section 92D

Shivom Vidyapeeth Shikshan Samiti, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemetion 2, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 261/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.261/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shivom Vidyapeeth Shikshan Samiti V Income Tax Officer 214, Shivom Vihar Raipur-492 013 S Exemption-2 Chhattisgarh Raipur Pan: Aahts 6464M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri G.S. Agrawal & Shubham Agarwal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 26.10.2022 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Ay 2015-16, Instituted Against The Penalty Order By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Dated 28.06.2018. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That Under The Facts & The Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of Penalty Levied By The Ld. Ao U/S 271(1)(C) At Rs.2,40,630/- Rejecting The Explanation. Prayed That Provisions Of Sec.271(1)(C) Are Not Applicable, Penalty Levied At Rs.2,40,630/- Kindly Be Cancelled. 2. That Under The Facts & The Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Further Erred In Confirming The Penalty Levied At Rs. 2,40,630/- U/S 271(1)(C) By The Ld. Ao, Though The Ld. Ao Did Not Allow Opportunity To The Appellant As To For Which Default, Penalty Proceedings Were Initiated. Prayed To Cancel The Penalty.

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal & ShubhamFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 57

July, 2011 in the case of ITO vs. Shri Vijay Ajmera, wherein ITAT, Mumbai has held that without going into the merits or levy of penalty, the CIT(A) has cancelled the order on the sole ground that the assessment order itself was set aside, therefore, the question of penalty ... same is liable to be cancelled. We, therefore, set aside both the orders of Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO pertaining to levy of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) which have lost the foundation of order u/s 143(3) when the quantum appeal for said assessment which was the basis