TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 1286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in such case, no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled. So, in view of the matter, penalties levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) is ordered to be deleted. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. - ITA No.6588/Del./2016 - - - Dated:- 21-1-2021 - SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Assessee: Ms. Reema Malik, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri Dheeraj Jain, Senior DR ORDER PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Appellant, M/s. Genpact Infrastructure (Hyderabad) Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the assessee ), by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 25.10.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act does not satisfy the essential constituent of being a speaking order and on this ground alone deserves to be quashed. a) That the Ld. AO grossly erred in sending the notice of hearing of initiation of penalty proceedings dated December 28, 2012 at the previous registered office address of the appellant, even after being communicated about the new registered office address. b) That the Ld. AO failed to appreciate the fact that the notice of hearing dated June 20, 2012 was received by the appellant in the evening of June 26, 2012 i.e. the date of hearing and thus, the appellant was not provided sufficient time to file its submission to the show cause notice. 5. That the Ld. AO grossly erred in law in levying penalty sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld AO has erred in holding that the appellant has not provided any explanation, and that the onus as per Explanation 1 of section 271(1)(c) of the Act has not been discharged by the appellant. 9. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO failed to appreciate that penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from the assessment proceedings, and any additions / enhancements made in the assessment could not mechanically lead to levy of penalty, unless it is proved that the appellant has deliberately furnished any inaccurate particulars of its income. 10. That the Ld. AO erred in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... challenging the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. At the very outset, it is brought to our notice by the ld. AR for the assessee that additions made in the quantum has since been deleted by the Tribunal in assessee s own case in ITA No.6587/Del/2016 for AY 2008-09 vide order dated 03.11.2020 and as such, penalty levied is not sustainable and brought on record the copy of the order of the Tribunal dated 03.11.2020 (supra). 6. Undisputedly, coordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 03. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
