2024 (11) TMI 1021

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... nature but it also whimsical and liable to be quashed because: a) The Ld. CIT(A) has not controverted the facts submitted by the AR of the assessee stating the following: i) That the addition has been made on deemed basis u/s 2(22) (e) of the IT Act then how the question of submitting inaccurate particulars or concealment of the facts has arisen. ii) That when the addition has been made in the hands of Biggesto Technologies Ltd. u/s 148 of the IT Act for the same advance and for the same assessment year from the same party then how the same addition can be made again in the hands of Mrs. Sudesh Gupta for the same Assessment Year for the same amount and for the same advance u/s 2(22)(e) of the IT Act and how the s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... How the assuming of jurisdiction u/s 147/143(3) can be legal when the same addition in the case of another assessee has already been made, therefore the penalty proceedings are void ab initio and the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by not adjudicating the same and ignoring the submission of the assessee. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 13,60,455/- u/s. 271(1)9c) and the same is liable to be deleted. 2. The brief facts of the case are that AO levied the penalty of Rs. 1,360,455/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Prior to this, AO made the assessment u/s. 143(3)/147 on 24.11.2016. Addition of deemed dividend was made of Rs. 1,29,53,126/- u/s. 2(22)(e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... jurisdictional High Court had passed the order in favour of the assessee on similar issue: - Pr. CIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance [2021] 432 ITR 84 (DHC) - Pr. CIT vs. Blackroak Securities Pvt. Ltd. - ITA 658/2023 (DHC) - PCIT vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal [2023] 153 taxmann.com 534 (Delhi)] - Biotronic Medical Devices Pvt Ltd. vs. ACIT, ITA No. 9568/Del/2019. (Del-Trib) - MA Projects Private Limited vs. ACIT, ITA no. 1636/Del/2022 . (Del-Trib) 5. Per contra, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 6. Upon careful consideration, we find considerable cogency in the contention of the Ld. AR that notice dated 24.11.2016 under Section 274 r.w.s. 271 (1)(c) of the Act was issued to t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer and the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the penalty order are erroneous. Accordingly, the penalty order dated 29.03.2019for A.Y 2009-10 and the penalty order dated 31.03.20190for A.Y 2010-11 are hereby quashed. Accordingly, Assessee's Grounds of Appeal in 1TA No. 9568/Del/2019 and lTA No. 9800/Del/2019 are allowed." 6.2 We further find that in the case of M.A. Projects Private Limited v. ACIT, ITA No.1636/Del./2022 vide order dated 12.4.2023, the Coordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunal had dealt exactly the similar issue and held as under:- "8. Upon careful consideration and going through the notice submitted by the assessee at page no. 1 of paper book, we note that the....