2022 (7) TMI 329

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 23.03.2018 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as "the Act") by AO, ACIT, Circle 25(2), New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the Ld. AO). 2. The facts in brief are that the original return declaring total loss of Rs. 17,30,32,733/- was e-filed on 19.08.2011 which was assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act at loss of Rs. 14,26,63,801/- on 10.03.2015. The Assessee contested the said assessment order before the ld CIT(A). As the appeal of the Assessee had been partly allowed by the ld CIT(A) vide appeal No. 334/15-16 dated 18.11.2016 by allowing ground of appeal on the addition on account of deprecation on intangibles of Rs. 2,40,79,042/-. Hence, the remaining additions after the decision of the ld CIT(A) were cons....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iculars by the appellant. 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the levy of penalty on the amount of addition of Rs 27,99,953 being amount written off as liquidated damages by the appellant in the relevant assessment year 3. That the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the amount of addition made by the assessing officer of Rs 27,99,953 was disclosed on the face of the profit and loss account as provision for liquidated damages written off and thus, no case for levy of penalty was made out." 6. Heard and perused the records. 7. It was submitted on behalf of the Assessee that the additions made on account of provision for liquidated damages stands deleted by the Tribunal in ITA No. 95/Del/2017 vi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appellate authority. The Hon"ble Supreme Court in the case of K.C. Builders vs. ACIT 135 Taxman 461 (SC), has made it crystal clear that where the additions made in the Assessment Order, on the basis of which penalty for concealment was levied, are deleted, by ITAT or otherwise, the penalty cannot stand by itself and is liable to be cancelled. 10. Now in regard to second charge for which penalty is levied for interest on TDS it can be observed that the ld AO in his assessment order had not mentioned a word regarding his satisfaction for proceeding with penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act while passing the impugned penalty order dated 23.03.2018. The assessment order does not mention if penalty proceedings has to be for conc....