TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 392
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the AO without considering the merits of the issue and merely on the ground that the ITAT has deleted the quantum addition. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty levied by the AO without appreciating the fact that the Department has not accepted the order of the Hon'ble ITAT deleting the quantum addition made and further appeal before the High Court u/s 260A is pending before Hon'ble High Court. 3. The appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the grounds be set aside and that of the AO be restored. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter all or any of the grounds of appeal. 2. The Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1(1)(c) of the Act does not survive and allowed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue has filed an appeal with the Hon'ble Tribunal. 5.At the time of hearing, the Ld.DR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty and relied on the AO order and prayed for allowing the revenue appeal. 6.Contra, the Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in assessee own case in respect of quantum additions and has been deleted and prayed for dismissal of revenue appeal. 7. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie, the sole crux of the disputed issue is with respect to penalty deleted by the CIT(A). We on perusal of the CIT(A) order find that the CIT(A) has r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the bogus sales stated by the AO has been accepted as genuine but even the retraction of the Director Shri Shailesh Shah has been upheld. It was, therefore, contended that non-furnishing of the actual reasons prevented the assessee from making out an appropriate objection against the initiation of reassessment proceedings. The aforesaid matrix brought out by the learned A.R. clearly suggests that the AO has not accorded the sanctity which is otherwise mandated by law to the requirement of supplying of reasons for reopening to the assessee. Apart from nonadherence to the mandated requirement, in the present case, even on facts, it is absolutely clear that non-furnishing of the actual reasons recorded for initiating reassessment has quieted....