2013 (5) TMI 1031

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: This appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT (A)-9, Mumbai dated 26.8.2010 for the assessment year 1992-93. In this appeal, Revenue raised only one ground which reads as under: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 on the basis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....25,91,184/-.AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied minimum penalty of Rs. 44,31,300/- vide order dated 30.3.2009. It is equivalent to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on the concealed income of Rs. 1,25,91,184/-. Against the said penalty order of the AO, assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). During the proceedings before the CIT(A), it was submitted that the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on that the penalty does not survive when the quantum addition was deleted by the ITAT. Thus, Ld DR fairly mentioned that the Tribunal make take a view on the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. On the other hand, none appeared on behalf of the assessee to represent. 5. We have heard the Ld DR, perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities and the papers filed before us. We have al....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ons of the appellant. I have also gone though the aforesaid order of ITAT whereby quantum addition has been deleted by the ITAT. Therefore, I am of the view that there exists no ground for levy of concealment penalty in this case. Hence, penalty order is cancelled." 6. The above paragraphs of the CIT(A) are categorical in mentioning that the Tribunal deleted the additions on merits. In fact, th....