TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 674X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessee By : Shri C.S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR ORDER Per Anadee Nath Misshra, AM (A) This appeal by Assessee is filed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [ Ld. CIT , for short] dated 17.09.2018 for Assessment Year 2008-09. Grounds taken in this appeal of Assessee are as under: 1. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not quashing the penalty order dt. 30.03.2016 passed by the ld. A.O. u/s 271(l)(c), particularly when the notice dt. 30.03.2016 issued by the ld. A.O. was 'vague' and also because the 'charge' was not specified. The Ld. A.O. had issued a notice dt. 30.03.2013, containing the heading NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 27ID OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 2. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the penalty imposed by the ld. A.O. u/s 271(l)(c) on the amount of addition of ₹ 73,38,000/- representing the unsecured loan from Sh. Sanjay Sharma (one of the directors), while stating that I am not in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h order dated 15.09.2020 has been passed by the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the Ld. CIT(A) quashed the initiation of proceedings under Section 147 of I.T. Act and held that additions made cannot survive any more. (B.1) The assessee separately filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the aforesaid order dated 30.03.2016 of the Assessing officer levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act. Vide appellate order dated 17.09.2018 , the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed assessee s appeal. In effect, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act in respect of certain additions and balance penalty was deleted. The present appeal before us is filed against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 17.09.2018 of the Ld. CIT(A). (B.1.1) In the course of appellate proceedings in ITAT, a synopsis was filed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. The relevant portion of the synopsis is reproduced as under: ITA 7429/Del/2018 AY 2008-09 1. It is an appeal against the order passed by the learned CIT(A) u/s 250(6) on (Appeal No.143/17-18) w.r.t. the penalty order passed by the learned AO u/s 271(l)(c) on 17.09.2018 30.09.2016. 2. It is respectfully ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xplained . Similar remark was given by the learned CIT(A) with regard to the addition of ₹ 2,75,000/- made by the learned AO on a/c of loan from Sh. Iqbal Singh Sethi. The learned CIT(A) had confirmed levy of the penalty u/s 271(l)(c) with regard to the addition of ₹ 6,44,817/- by stating that it was the onus of the assessee to rebut the finding of fact returned by the AO. In this context, it is noteworthy that at that point of time, the appeal order dt. 15.09.2020 (through which all such addition were deleted) was not in existence. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE Apropos quantum The ld ITO Ward 7(1) New Delhi had passed the assessment order u/s 148 /143(3) on 30.03.2013, thereby making additions and disallowances amounting to ₹ 88,82,816/-. Being aggrieved with the said assessment order, the assessee had filed an appeal before the CIT(A) on 01.05.2013. The ld CIT(A) 8 New Delhi had passed an ex-parte order on 23.03.2015 (in Appeal No.77/13-14) thereby dismissing the appeal in limine. Being aggrieved with the said ex-parte appellate order passed by the ld CIT(A) 8 New Delhi, the assessee had filed an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT New Delh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard to CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019. (C.1) The Ld. Sr. DR relied on the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer. (C.2) We have heard both sides. We have perused the materials available on record. We find that there is an error in the synopsis filed by the Ld. Counsel for assessee, wherein it has been stated that the ITO has passed a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act on 30.03.2016 thereby levying penalty of ₹ 27,44,790/-. Assessment Order dated 30.03.2013 passed by the Assessing Officer has already been quashed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide aforesaid order dated 15.09.2020 wherein the Ld. CIT(A) also held that other additions cannot survive. The Ld. Sr. DR for Revenue has also not disputed the claim of the Ld. Counsel that no appeal has been filed by Revenue against the aforesaid appellate order dated 15.09.2020 of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Sr. DR for Revenue has also not disputed the claim of the Ld. Counsel for assessee that the Revenue cannot file appeal against the aforesaid appellate order dated 15.09.2020 of Ld. CIT(A) because of the tax effect being less than ₹ 50 lakhs, having regard to CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
