TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 1265
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee filed an appeal before the ld CIT (A) against the order passed u/s 154/ 271(1)(c) passed on 07.07.2004 by the ITO, Ward-1(1), Meerut. 3. The ld AO passed original assessment order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on 21.03.2014 wherein, he levied penalty of Rs. 70 lacs u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the above penalty order, the assessee made an application u/s 154 of the Act on 12.04.2014. The assessee submitted that the penalty order received by it on 26.03.2014 stating that quantum appeal are pending before the ld CIT(A) and therefore, this penalty proceedings should be kept in abeyance. The assessee further referred to the order of the ld CIT(A) stating that the quantum addition is also subjected to the order of the honourable High Court.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nally decided against the appellant, the addition of Rs. 1,85,37,736.00 be treated as deleted." 5. Because the penalty imposed is also against the Law as the CIT (A) has passed the order keeping the final order in abeyance. 6. Kindly stay the demand pending decision in appeal. 7. The appellant carves leave to add / alter grounds of appeal before or at time of hearing. 8. That in any case the additions/disallowance made are arbitrary and excessive and against the Law." 5. The appeal was fixed for hearing on 15.09.2021 but nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee. Similar is the fate of hearing on 14.09.2021, 28.06.2021, 19.04.2021, 10.04.2021, 30.10.2019, 14.08.2019. Only on 07.01.2021, Mr. Ashwani Kumar Jain appeared and filed an ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal before the ld CIT(A), which was dismissed on 16.08.2012 and therefore, penalty, was levied by the ld AO. The claim of the assessee is that there are certain correction are required in the order of the ld CIT(A) while dismissing the quantum appeal of the assessee in the second round of appeal and therefore, penalty could not have been levied and therefore, there is an error in the order of the ld AO which is rectifiable u/s 154 of the Act. The ld CIT(A) has categorically held that order of the levy of penalty passed by the ld AO has considered all the facts and does not have any error, which could be rectified u/s 154 of the Act. In our considered view also there is no error pointed out by the assessee before the ld AO and the ld CIT(A....