2026 (2) TMI 810

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Appeals)- 29 [for short, Ld. CIT(A)], New Delhi u/s 250 whereas the assessee has filed cross objection against it. 3. At the threshold, it is noted that the appeal is time-barred by 03 days. An application for condonation of delay has been filed by the revenue. After considering the reasons explained therein, we hereby condone the minor delay of 3 days in filing of appeal by the Revenue. 4. The Revenue has raised following grounds in its cross objection: "1. Whether Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 71,51,527/- without appreciating that assessment in the case of the assessee for the year under consideration was duly completed as per the statutory provisions of s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the penalty imposed by Ld. AO under section 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 71,51,527/-, as the impugned penalty order is illegal and void ab-initio and without obtaining the valid approval from the competent authority in accordance with law. 4. That in any case and in any view of the matter, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the impugned penalty as the penalty proceedings initiated are bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and without granting adequate opportunity of hearing and without observing the principles of natural justice. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efore, Ld. CIT(A) had wrongly deleted the penalty on the ground that the assessment was still pending. 6.2 On the other hand, the assessee has filed cross objection raising several issues including the legal ground regarding non-striking off of limb under which penalty was sought to be levied in the notices issued on 24.09.2024 & 27.09.2024. 7. We first take up the legal ground raised by the assessee in its cross objection wherein it is claimed that the AO had failed to specify the exact charge i.e., whether the penalty was for 'concealment of income' or 'for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income', thereby rendering the initiations and penalty invalid. 7.1 In this regard, Ld. AR has placed before us copies of notices issue....