TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns made in the Assessment Order, on the basis of which penalty for concealment was levied, are deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment, and therefore, in such a case, no such penalty can survive and the same is liable to be cancelled. In view of the foregoing, appeal filed by Revenue is hereby dismissed. - ITA No:- 3225/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 6-3-2019 - Smt. Diva Singh, Judicial Member And Shri Anadee Nath Misshra, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Vijay Agarwal, CA For the Revenue : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM This appeal by Revenue is filed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi, [ Ld. CIT(A) , ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt). This addition was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, penalty U/s 271(1)(c) was levied by the Assessing Officer ( AO , for short) vide order dated 21.03.2014, amounting to ₹ 1,27,50,670/- which was @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded, in respect of the aforesaid addition of ₹ 3,75,13,010/-. Vide impugned order dated 11.03.2016 of Ld. CIT(A), this penalty was deleted. The relevant portion of the order of Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: 5. I have considered the appellant s contentions, carefully gone through the order of the ACIT, Central Circle-09 and deliberated on the case laws referred by the AR of the appellant during the course of the hearing before me. 5.1 The addition made by AO is based on AS-7 which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee that it is in the construction business. On these facts we respectfully follow the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of Haware Constructions P. Ltd. vs. ITO (2011) 64 DTR 251, wherein it is held as follows. There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee company is engaged in the business of construction and builders and during the A.Y. 2004- 05 the project completion method followed by the assessee has been accepted. The submission of the counsel for the assessee that the Revenue has not taken any remedial measure u/s 263 or 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), for the A.Y. 2004-05 and 2006-07 even after the order of the AO and CIT(A) for A.Y. 2005-06 could not be controverted by the Departmental Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y following the same we hold that A.S.-7 does not apply to the facts of the case. Hence the system of accounting followed by the assessee consistently over the years has to be upheld. (2.1.1) The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the penalty levied U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act should be deleted too, as the corresponding quantum addition has already been deleted by ITAT. The Ld. AR also relied on synopsis, relevant portion of which is reproduced below: 1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated 11.03.2016 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) for the A/Y 2009-10. 2. In this case the assessee had filed an appeal before the ITAT being aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) against the quantum additions. The ITAT vide its or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
