TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 1473
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enue has filed this appeal against the Order dated 3.6.2013 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I), New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2007-08. 2. The grounds raised by the Department read as under:- "1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and facts. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the penalt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... extent of Rs. 1,02,47,738/-. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271 r.w.s. 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 during the assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3), and finally imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,01,67,817/- u/s. 271(1)(c) on the amounts upheld in appeal vide order dated 16.3.2011. 4. Aggrieved with the penalty order, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 03.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) knowing well that quantum has already been decided by the ITAT. He placed reliance upon the decision of the ITAT in the case of ACIT vs. RPG Credit & Capital Ltd. wherein the strictures have been passed against the Department for filing frivolous appeal. He also filed the copy of the letter written by the Member, CBDT directing the Commissioners of Income Tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntum addition has been deleted, the penalty relating thereto does not survive and was rightly deleted, which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. 8.1 As regards the addition of Rs. 1,02,47,738/-, we find that the ITAT has vide aforesaid order dated 17.5.2012 vide para 110 of the order restored the matter to the AO with the dire....