TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 347
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Income Tax Act, 1961 (the "Act") for Assessment year ("AY") 2006-07 for non-compliance of the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act dated 10.10.2018. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds:- "1. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)'] erred on facts and in law in dismissing, ex-parte, the appeal vide order dated 04.11.2020, without giving proper/ effective/ valid notice of hearing and without judiciously considering/ adjudicating the grounds raised by the appellant. 1.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in dismissing, ex-parte, the appeal of the appellant without proper/ effective/ valid service of notice of hearing on the appellant, and proceeding on presumed service by purportedly up....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ples of judicial propriety. 2.4. That the CIT(A)/ Assessing Officer further failed to appreciate that prerequisite conditions for imposition of penalty were not satisfied and the default, in any case, was reasonable not justifying any penalty in terms of section 273B of the Act. 3. This is the penalty proceedings initiated during the course of set aside fresh proceedings in the second round. 4. The facts in brief are that in the first round, the assessment for AY 2006-07 was completed on 27.02.2015 under section 153A of the Act on income of Rs. 76,13,140/-. This assessment was set aside by the Tribunal with a direction to the Ld. AO to adjudicate the matter afresh vide order dated 10.04.2017 in appeal No. 5448/Del/2016. 5. During the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filed further appeal before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The appeal of the assessee has since been decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide its order dated 13.12.2023 in ITA No. 612/2017 whereby the original assessment order itself has been quashed. In view of this the assessment order passed in second round of proceedings stands vitiated. Consequently, the impugned penalty can have no legs to stand and deserves to be deleted. 9. The Ld. CIT-DR had nothing to say but to support the order of the Ld. AO/CIT(A). 10. We have considered the submission of the parties and perused the records. It is noticed that penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act pursuant to first round of proceedings was deleted by the Tribunal vide order da....