TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals preferred by the assessee against the orders of the AO giving effect to the then CIT (A)’s order were not maintainable - CIT (A) was also justified in treating the assessees’ appeals as infructuous against the penalty orders passed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act which emanated from the original assessment orders – Decided against Revenue. - ITA Nos. 611 to 616/Bang/2012, ITA Nos.617 to 618/Bang/2012, ITA Nos.619 to 620/Bang/2012, ITA Nos.621 to 622/Bang/2012 - - - Dated:- 30-4-2014 - Shri George George K. And Shri Jason P. Boaz,JJ. For the Petitioner : Ms. Prescilla Singst, CIT (DR) For the Respondent : Shri A. Shankar, Advocate ORDER Per George George K. J.M. 1. These twelve appeals, at the instance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the issues are as under: There was a search and seizure operation in the premises of Shyamraju Group on 1.3.2007 and on subsequent dates. Consequently, in compliance to the notices u/s 153A of the Act dated 14.11.2007, returns of income was furnished for the relevant assessment years. The AO had, for the relevant assessment years [AYs 2004.05 to 2006-07] under dispute, passed orders u/s 143(3) r.w.s. s. 153A of the Act dt 31.12.2008 by making certain additions. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT (A). The then CIT (A)-VI, Bangalore had passed a common order dated 11.2.2010 [in ITA Nos.513, 514 515] in allowing the appeals in part, thereby giving certain directions to the AO. Accordingly, the AO passed orders by giv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders in this case has been annulled by the Hon ble ITAT vide its order dated 06.01.2012 in ITA Nos.504, 505 507, the present appeal in ITA Nos. 98, 99 100/CIT (A)-VI/Bangalore/2011 in these years are thus not maintainable and, accordingly, becomes infructuous. Therefore, the appeals are treated as infructuous. 6. With regard to the levy of penalties u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in the cases of (i) P Shymaraju [A.Ys. 2004-05 to 2006- 07], (ii) Sri Bhaskar Raju (AYs 2004-05 06-07), (iii) Sri Umesh Raju [AYs. 2004-05 06-07] and (iv) Smt. Arathi Raju [AYs 2004-05 06-07], the common facts, in brief, are as under: 6.1. Levy of penalties u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in the cases of the assessees and the assessment years mentioned supra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uous. Therefore, the present appeals also become infructuous and, therefore, these appeals are non-maintainable and infructuous . 7. Aggrieved, the Revenue has come up before us with the present appeals. During the course of hearing, the learned DR submitted that the Hon ble earlier Bench of this Tribunal had annulled the assessment orders passed in the same group on the ground that the warrant issued in joint names was not legal by relying on the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Smt Vandana Verma and also on the decision of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of P.J. Kumar on the issue of joint warrant. It was, further, submitted that the CIT (A), following the findings of the Hon ble Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the relevant materials on record and also the findings of the CIT (A) on the issue. At the outset, we would like to point out that the earlier Bench of this Tribunal had annulled the original assessments made u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act dated 31.12.2008 and, thus, the AO s orders giving effect to the then CIT (A) s order are not maintainable since the quantum appeals based on the original assessment orders dated 31.12.2008 have since been knocked down by the Tribunal (supra). Therefore, the present CIT (A) was justified in coming to a conclusion that the appeals preferred by the assessee against the orders of the AO giving effect to the then CIT (A) s order w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
