TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 788X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. In these circumstances, the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by ld. CIT (A) is not sustainable in view of the law laid down in K.C. Builders Anr vs. ACIT [ 2004 (1) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] because when the addition made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied have been deleted there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty - Decided i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in imposing penalty of ₹ 7,31,850/- and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of undisclosed income of ₹ 20,00,000/- in the garb of share application money/bogus transaction/ gifts through M/s. Geefcee Finance Ltd. was made u/s 68 of the Act and consequently, AO proceeded to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income with regard to the bogus share application money stated to have been received by the assessee. Decli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since been deleted by the Tribunal in assessee s own case in ITA No.929/Del/2015 vide order dated 08.09.2016 and as such, penalty levied is not sustainable and brought on record the copy of the order of the Tribunal dated 08.09.2016 (supra). 6. Undisputedly, coordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 08.09.2016 (supra) deleted the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. In thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
