TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cancelled. In view of the foregoing, appeal filed by Revenue is hereby dismissed. - ITA No:- 5580/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 24-7-2019 - Shri H.S. Sidhu, Judicial Member And Shri Anadee Nath Misshra, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Rajesh Goel, Adv. And Shri Prashant Goel, CA For the Revenue : Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. Dr ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM This appeal by Revenue is filed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Rohtak, [ Ld. CIT(A) , for short], dated 24.11.2014 and 19.08.2016 respectively for Assessment Year 2010-11, on the following grounds: 1. The CIT(A) has erred in dele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO vide order dated 04.07.2018 in ITA No. 883/Del/2015 for Assessment Year 2010-11. He filed a copy of the aforesaid order dated 04.07.2018 passed in ITA No. 883/Del/2015. The relevant portion of the order of ITAT is reproduced as under: 5. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the material available on record. A perusal of the order of the Assessing Officer shows that the Assessing Officer has disallowed the entire amount claimed as expenditure on the ground that the impugned amount was huge as compared to the interest receipts credited by the assessee in its profit and loss account. The Assessing Officer has disallowed the assessee s claim at the threshold itself without examining the details in this reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ITAT. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative ( DR , for short) appearing for Revenue relied on the order of the AO. We have heard both sides patiently and we have also carefully perused the materials available on record. We are of the view that penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act of ₹ 43,15,142 /- levied by AO, has no legs to stand when the issues regarding corresponding additions made by the AO have already been set aside by ITAT vide its aforesaid order dated 04.07.2018. When the quantum addition is already set aside by ITAT, the penalty levied U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act on the corresponding quantum addition also cannot survive. We take support from judicial precedent in the case of K.C. Builders vs. ACIT 135 Taxman 461 (SC), in wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
