TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 327
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 16.01.2020 for the A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. 2. Since the issues raised in all the appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed off by this consolidated order. We are taking Appeal Nos. ITA 1698/Mum/2020 and ITA.No. 891/Mum/2020 for A.Y. 2010-11 as a lead appeals. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate development and constructions. A search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "Act") was conducted in the case of the assessee along with other entities of Akshar Group on 28.09.2011. The assessment was completed u/s. 153A of the Act after making certain additions. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the Assessing Officer does not indicated if prior approval of the JCIT has been obtained by the Assessing Officer in passing the above said order. Since he deleted the penalty u/s. 275(1A) r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 25.09.2018, he proceeded to adjudicate the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in Appeal No. 13, he directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the quantum of penalty only to the extent of the addition confirmed by the ITAT and dismissed the other grounds raised by the assessee on technical grounds. 6. Aggrieved with the above order both assessee as well as revenue is in appeal raising following grounds in its appeal: - 7. Revenue has raised following grounds in its appeal: -....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ined by the AO in passing order u/s.275(1A) and therefore is held to be illegal and void ab initio without appreciating the fact that the A.O while passing the penalty order u/s.275(1A) r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 25.09.2018 has categorically mentioned that as the appeal in this case is pending before the Hon'ble High Court, hence this penalty order is subject to modification u/s.271(1A) as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court?". (4) The appellant prays that the order of Ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. (5) The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary." 8. Assessee has raised following grounds in its....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bachubhai Patel -- 28/03/2014 Assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A making addition. 92-118 13/01/2017 CIT(A) passed an order confirming additions made by AO. 27/03/2018 Penalty order passed by AO (impugned order in present appeal ) Attached to Form 36 28/02/2018 ITAT passed order deleting additions. 119-180 04/05/2018 Order giving effect to the order of ITAT passed by AO. 184-185 25/09/2018 Penalty order u/s. 275(1A) r.w.s. 271(l)(c) passed, superseding the impugned penalty order dated 27/03/2018 10. Ld. AR briefly explained the facts in this case and she specifically brought to our notice Page No. 11 of the Ld.CIT(A) order to submit that when the Assessin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....71(1)(c) of the Act dated 25.09.2018. We observe that Ld.CIT(A) cancelled the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer in the second revised penalty order on the basis of technical issue of not obtaining prior approval from JCIT. However, when the Assessing Officer revises the penalty imposed by him, whatever order passed prior to that becomes infructuous, the concept of merger applies. Whatever the recent order passed alone will survive. Since Ld.CIT(A) has cancelled the second revised penalty order the question is whether the first revised penalty order will survive. The situation is Catch-22. 14. After considering the detailed submissions and pondering upon the documents submitted before us, in our considered view Ld.CIT(A) has cancell....