TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 674
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nalty order dt. 30.03.2016 passed by the ld. A.O. u/s 271(l)(c), particularly when the notice dt. 30.03.2016 issued by the ld. A.O. was 'vague' and also because the 'charge' was not specified. The Ld. A.O. had issued a notice dt. 30.03.2013, containing the heading "NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 27ID OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961" 2. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the penalty imposed by the ld. A.O. u/s 271(l)(c) on the amount of addition of Rs. 73,38,000/- representing the unsecured loan from Sh. Sanjay Sharma (one of the directors), while stating that "I am not inclined to interfere in the conclusion made in the quantum assessment that the nature and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r whereunder penalty amounting to Rs. 27,44,790/- was levied at the maximum rate of 300% of tax sought to be evaded, in respect of aforesaid additions totalling Rs. 88,82,816/-. The Assessee's appeal against aforesaid quantum additions totalling Rs. 88,82,816/- was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide appellate order dated 23.03.2015 in Appeal No. 77/13-14, as the assessee did not avail the opportunity of being heard before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee filed appeal against the aforesaid appellate order dated 23.05.2015 of Ld. CIT(A) in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("ITAT", for short). Vide order dated 27.07.2018 in ITA No. 3463/Del/2015, Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi, set aside the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). In pursuance of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. Since the assessment order dt.30.03.2013, through which the penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) were initiated, does not survive anymore, the penalty u/s 271(l)(c) cannot survive. 4. It may be worth pointing out here that upon visiting the ITAT' Judicial Information Portal, it is observed that no appeal against the order dt. 15.09.2020 passed by the learned CIT(A) has been filed by the Revenue. It is therefore clear that the appeal order dt. 15.09.2020 has attained finality. Even otherwise, the appeal order dt. 15.09.2020 cannot be challenged by the Revenue because of the 'low tax effect' (the total amount of additions/disallowances made by the learned AO was Rs. 88,82,816/-). WITHOUT PREJUDICE 5. The assessee had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The learned CIT(A) had confirmed levy of the penalty u/s 271(l)(c) with regard to the addition of Rs. 6,44,817/- by stating that it was the onus of the assessee to rebut the finding of fact returned by the AO. In this context, it is noteworthy that at that point of time, the appeal order dt. 15.09.2020 (through which all such addition were deleted) was not in existence. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE Apropos quantum The ld ITO Ward 7(1) New Delhi had passed the assessment order u/s 148 /143(3) on 30.03.2013, thereby making additions and disallowances amounting to Rs. 88,82,816/-. Being aggrieved with the said assessment order, the assessee had filed an appeal before the CIT(A) on 01.05.2013. The ld CIT(A) 8 New Delhi had passed an ex-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmissions made in the aforesaid synopsis. In particular, he drew our attention to the fact that vide appellate order dated 15.09.2020 of the Ld. CIT(A) the additions which were made by the Assessing Officer vide Assessment Order dated 30.03.2013 passed under Section 148/143(3) of I.T. Act do not survive as of now, in view of the fact that the initiation of proceedings under Section 147 of I.T. Act has been quashed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide aforesaid order dated 15.09.2020. He further submitted that the Assessment Order dated 30.03.2013 which was the foundation for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act; does not survive as of now in view of aforesaid order dated 15.09.2020 of the Ld. CIT(A); and as a result the penalty levied und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 50 lakhs, having regard to CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019. The impugned appellate order dated 17.09.2018 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) wherein penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act was partly confirmed and partly deleted; was passed at a time when the aforesaid assessment order dated 30.03.2013 passed by the Assessing Officer was still in existence and assessee's appeal against quantum additions had been dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide aforesaid appellate order dated 23.03.2015 in Appeal no. 77/13-14. However, as of now, the circumstances have changed, due to aforesaid fresh appellate order dated 15.09.2020 passed by Ld. CIT(A) in pursuance of aforesaid order dated 27.07.2018 of Co-ordinate Ben....