TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shadiram Balmukand [ 1971 (2) TMI 16 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and Dwarka Prasad Subhas Chandra[ 1972 (1) TMI 40 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Lakkdhir Lalji [ 1971 (9) TMI 33 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] have also held that when the original basis of initiation of the penalty proceeding is altered or modified by the appellate authority, the authority initiating the penalty proceedings has no jurisdiction thereafter to proceed on the basis of the findings of the appellate authority. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of K.C. Builders vs. ACIT [ 2004 (1) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] has made it crystal clear that where the additions made in the Assessment Order, on the basis of which penalty for concealme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. AO had ordered to initiate the proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) separately. Thereafter, penalty of ₹ 15,79,847/-, being the income sought to be evaded was imposed. The assessee had challenged the same and by the impugned order of 30.10.2018, the Ld. First Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal and confirmed the penalty. 3. The assessee has preferred the present appeal primarily on the ground that the penalty was imposed on the basis of debatable issue and that the Ld. AO has not specified as to whether the penalty is levied for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof. 4. Ld. AR and the Sr. DR were heard and record has been perused. 5. The Ld. Counsel for assessee, without going on merits of gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellate authority, the authority initiating the penalty proceedings has no jurisdiction thereafter to proceed on the basis of the findings of the appellate authority. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of K.C. Builders vs. ACIT 135 Taxman 461 (SC), has made it crystal clear that where the additions made in the Assessment Order, on the basis of which penalty for concealment was levied, are deleted, by ITAT or otherwise, the penalty cannot stand by itself and is liable to be cancelled. 7. Consequently, the appeal in hand succeeds and the same is allowed. The impugned orders of imposing penalty passed by Ld. AO and confirmed by Ld. FAA, are set aside. Order pronounced and signed in open court on this 31st day of March, 2022. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
