9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2708X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. In this appeal, the assessee has challenged the order dated 5th February 2014, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-5, Mumbai, upholding the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), for the assessment year 2007-08. 2. Briefly the facts are, the assessee a company filed its return of income for the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e basis of the above facts, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain why disallowance under section 14A should not be worked out in terms with rule 8D. In reply to the query raised by the Assessing Officer, it was submitted by the assessee that as the assessee itself has made disallowance under section 14A of the Act, no further disallowance under rule 8D should be made. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llate authority and the only addition which survived was an amount of Rs. 86,71,763 on account of outstanding liability of service tax. He, therefore, proceeded to impose penalty under section 271(1)(c) by treating the said addition as concealed income of the assessee. Being aggrieved of the said penalty order, the assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority. However, the first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, has been deleted by the Tribunal while deciding assessee's quantum appeal, the very basis for imposition of penalty no more survives. Therefore, we have no hesitation in deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
5. In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 09.10.2015 X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
