2019 (4) TMI 1576

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... VICE PRESIDENT: These two appeals by the Department are directed against the common order dated 7.5.2018 of CIT(A), Panchkula. 2. Since the issue involved is common and appeals were heard together so these are disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The common issue involved in both the appeals relates to the deletion of penalty levied by the Assessi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the assessee. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the material available on record. In the present case, it is noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the impugned additions levied by the Assessing officer u/s 271(1)(c) by observing in para 5 of the impugned order as under:- "5. I have carefully considered argument of the counsel for the appellant and have also perused the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dditions on the basis of which the Assessing officer levied the impugned penalties u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. On a similar issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. C. Builders & Others Vs ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562 has held as under:- "Where the additions made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied, are deleted, there remains no basis at all .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X