TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 674
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 source of the credit entries which have been stated as (purported loan from Sh. Sanjay Sharma, were not explained)". 3. 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. 2,75,000/- representing the unsecured loan from Sh. Iqbal Singh Sethi (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 source of the credit entries which have been stated as (purported loan from Sh. Iqbal Singh Sethi, were not explained)". 4. 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. 6,44,817/- representi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l/2018 AY 2008-09 "1. It is an appeal against the order passed by the learned CIT(A) u/s 250(6) on (Appeal No.143/17-18) w.r.t. the penalty order passed by the learned AO u/s 271(l)(c) on 17.09.2018 30.09.2016. 2. It is respectfully brought on record that in the second round of appeal proceedings (quantum), vide order dt. 15.09.2020 the learned CIT(A) has quashed the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 and also deleted the additions which were made by the learned AO vide assessment order dt.30.03.2013 passed u/s 148/143(3). 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 additi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arte order on 23.03.2015 (in Appeal No.77/13-14) thereby dismissing the appeal in limine. Being aggrieved with the said ex-parte appellate order passed by the ld CIT(A) 8 New Delhi, the assessee had filed an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT New Delhi on 29.05.2015 (ITA No. 3463/Del/2015). The Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench G New Delhi had heard the appeal in ITA No. 3463/Del/2015 (wrt ex-parte appellate order passed in quantum appeal) and vide passed the order on 27.07.2018, thereby restoring back the matter to the file of CIT(A) 8 New Delhi. Pursuant to the order dt. 27.07.2018 passed by the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench G New Delhi, the Id CIT(A) 8 New Delhi has passed the appellate order on 15.09.2020, quashing the proceedings initiated u/s 147 and simultaneously deleting all the additions/disallowances Apropos Penalty The ld ITO Ward 22(1) New Delhi had passed a penalty order u/s 271(l)(c) on 30.03.2016, thereby levying penalty of Rs. 27,44,790/-. Being aggreieved with the said penalty order, the assessee had filed an appeal on 10.05.2016k. The ld CIT(A) 23 New Delhi had passed an order before the CIT(A) on 17.09.2018 (in Appeal No. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e claim of the Ld. Counsel for assessee that the Revenue cannot file appeal against the aforesaid appellate order dated 15.09.2020 of Ld. CIT(A) because of the tax effect being less than Rs. 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 Bench of ITAT, Delhi in ITA No.- 3463/Del/2015. Presently the aforesaid assessment order dated 23.03.2015 and the additions made therein do not survive because of fresh aforesaid appellate order dated 15.09.2020 of the Ld. CIT(A) whereunder the initiation of proc....