2016 (6) TMI 212

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., 1961. (ii) On the facts and circumstances whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the penalty when the Hon'ble ITAT has allowed the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee for recalling the order of the Hon'ble ITAT wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has confirmed the assessment order of the Assessing Officer but no further information regarding filing of appeal is on record." 3. The learned DR, at the outset, heavily placed his reliance on the order of Assessing Officer. 4. The learned AR, on the other hand, submitted that penalty was imposed on the basis of addition which was made by Assessing Officer on the basis of estimation and in this respect the learned AR invited our attention to the penalty order wherein the fact that t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e was already made on 30.12.2008. On appeal before the CIT(Appeals), Jammu , the then CIT(Appeal) passed order in appeal no 754/08-09 dated 16.10.2009 deleting the said penalty and the order of CIT(A), Jammu was further upheld by the Hon'ble ITAT, Amritsar vide order no. ITA 33(ASR)/2010. The AO was asked to comment vide letter dated 13.11.2013 on appellant's submission as to how the penalty was again imposed. However, no reply received from AO till passing of this order. Once the penalty imposed by the AO and later on deleted by the CIT (Appeal) and Hon'ble Tribunal, the order of re- imposing the penalty on same assessed income for the assessment year, is illegal and accordingly cannot be sustained. 4.3. It is also observed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 or section 246A, and the Commissioner (Appeals) passes the order on or after the 1st day of June, 2003 disposing of such appeal, an order imposing penalty shall be passed before the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or within one year from the end of the financial year in which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever is later;] Thus, the penalty order under question is barred by limitation and accordingly cannot be sustained. We find that in ITA No.33(Asr)/2010 for Asst. year 2004-05, the similar penalty imposed by Assess....