2020 (4) TMI 846

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri Alok Malviya ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : This appeal filed by the Revenue is emanating out of the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune dated 25.11.2016 for assessment year 2010-11. 2. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under:- The assessee is a partnership firm stated to be engaged in the business of construction of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der dated 27.03.2015 levied penalty of Rs. 4,38,42,779/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) who after noting the facts that since quantum itself has been deleted by the Tribunal, there remains no basis for sustaining the penalty u/s.271(1) (c) of the Act held that penalty does not survive. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....visions of Section 80IB(10) of the I.T. Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty without appreciating the facts that order of the ITAT against quantum addition on which CIT(A) relied upon has been challenged by the department and is pending before Hon. High Court, Mumbai. 4. The appellant prays to be allowed to add, amen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that was denied by the Assessing Officer. We find that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) while deleting the penalty has noted that the Tribunal vide order dated 30.09.2015 in ITA No.1920/PN/2013 had directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act. Since deduction on which penalty has been levied has itself been deleted, there remains no basis for sustaining the penalty. ....