9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 24/01/2020 of Ld. CIT(A), Shimla, H.P. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal. "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 10,44,93,793/- levied by the A.O. u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by holding that since the quantum addition has been deleted by the Hon'ble ITAT, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2/Chd/2017 for the A.Y. 2008-09, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty levied by the A.O. u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act). Reliance was placed on the judgment mentioned of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.C. Builders and Anr. vs. ACIT reported in (2004) 265 ITR 562. 3. In her rival submissions, the Ld. CIT-DR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Anr. vs. ACIT reported in (2004) 265 ITR 562 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 for levying penalty for concealment and, therefore, in such a case no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled. Ordinarily, penalty cannot stand if the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
