9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /revenue, seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. 2. According to the appellant/revenue, the delay involved is 320 days. 3. Mr Tapas Ram Misra, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, says that he has no objection to the prayer made in the application being allowed. 4. It is ordered accordingly. The delay is condoned. 5. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ITA 393/2023 6. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. 7. The appellant/revenue has challenged the order dated 22.02.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "Act"]. 8. Before the Tribunal, the appellant/revenue had assailed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, "CIT(A)"] dated 16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of disallowance of amortized cost of land concerning wind power projects. 11.1 Insofar as the addition on account of the ALV of vacant commercial/self-occupied assets is concerned, the CIT(A) upheld the addition. 12. On account of this, penalty proceedings were separately initiated against the respondent/assessee. 12.1 The notice which was issued to the respondent/assessee did not specify, as to whether penalty proceedings was being initiated on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing particulars of income. 13. That said, the penalty order was passed by the AO on 28.03.2016. As indicated above, penalty amounting to Rs. 1,71,40,000/- was imposed on the respondent/assessee via the aforementioned order. 14. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant/revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. 18. The Tribunal sustained the view taken by the CIT(A). This is evident upon perusal of paragraph 12 to 16 of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 19. Mr Sanjay Kumar, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, submitted that the view taken, both by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, was flawed. 19.1 In support of his submission, Mr Kumar relied upon the penalty order passed by the AO. 20. On the other hand, Mr Tapas Ram Misra, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, relied upon the order passed by CIT(A). 21. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. According to us, on both counts, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal were rig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
