TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpugned order of the ld. CIT(A) when the Tribunal while passing the order dated 20.03.2017 in quantum appeals deleted the addition made by the AO. Therefore, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) would not survive and accordingly has been rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(A). Merely filing of the appeal before the Hon’ble High Court will not help the case of the Revenue when neither the said order is stayed nor reversed by the Hon’ble High Court. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case when the addition made by the AO itself has been deleted by the Tribunal in the quantum appeals then the levy of penalty has no legs to stand. - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 896 to 901/JP/2017 - - - Dated:- 31-1-2018 - SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee carried the matter against the assessment passed u/s 153A as well as u/s 153B of the Act to this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide order dated 20.03.2017 in ITA Nos. 776, 971/JP2015, 748/JP2014, 777/JP/2015, 972/JP2015, 973/JP/2015, 839/JP/2015, 01/JP/2016 02/JP/2016 deleted the additions made by the AO. In the mean time the AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAA of the Act in respect of the addition made by the AO to the returned income as well as the income surrendered and offered to tax by the assessee. The assessee challenged the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as well as u/s 271AAA of the Act before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) while passing the impugned composite order deleted the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led by the Revenues are pending before the Hon ble High Court. He has relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 4. On the other hand, ld. AR of the assessees have submitted that when the quantum addition made by the AO has been deleted by this Tribunal then the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) on such addition is not sustainable. He has supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 5. Having considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that the common issues involved in these appeals of the Revenue is whether the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by considering the fact that the Tribunal has deleted the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by the AO and consequently the penalty levied by the Assessing to the extent of addition deleted by the Tribunal is not sustainable. Hence, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) when the Tribunal while passing the order dated 20.03.2017 in quantum appeals deleted the addition made by the AO. Therefore, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) would not survive and accordingly has been rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(A). We further note that merely filing of the appeal before the Hon ble High Court will not help the case of the Revenue when neither the said order is stayed nor reversed by the Hon ble High Court. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case when the addition made by the AO itse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
