9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds of the appeal raised by the assessee are as under: "1. That under the facts & the law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the Order of Penalty levied by the Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) at Rs. 2,40,630/- rejecting the explanation. Prayed that provisions of Sec. 271(1)(c) are not applicable, penalty levied at Rs. 2,40,630/- kindly be cancelled. 2. That under the facts & the law, the Ld. CIT (A) further erred in confirming the Penalty levied at Rs. 2,40,630/- u/s 271(1)(c) by the Ld. AO, though the Ld. AO did not allow opportunity to the appellant as to for which default, penalty proceedings were initiated. Prayed to cancel the Penalty. 3. That under the facts & the law, the Ld. CIT (A) further erred in confirming the Order of Ld. AO levyin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . At the outset, the Ld. AR for the assessee submitted before us, an order passed by the SMC Bench of ITAT, Raipur in assessee's own case in ITA No. 262 & 263/RPR/2022 for AYs. 2015-16 and 2016-17 dated 17.03.2023, wherein the quantum appeal of the assessee against the order u/s 143(3) for the relevant assessment year 2015-16 was disposed off by the coordinate bench of ITAT, Raipur, with following observations: "13. Considering the totality of the facts involved in the present case, I am of the considered view that in the backdrop of the CBDT Circular No.01/2015, dated 21.01.2015 the assessee would duly be entitled for the benefit of Sections 11/12 of the Act for the year under consideration i.e. AY. 2015-16. However, as the A.O had in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... support this contention, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted an order in the case of K.C. Builders vs. ACIT, reported in [2004] 135 taxman 461 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "Whether where an order of assessment or reassessment on basis of which penalty has been levied on assessee has itself been finally set aside or cancelled by Tribunal or otherwise, penalty cannot stand by itself and same is liable to be cancelled."- Held yes. It was the submission that the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.C. Builders vs. ACIT (supra), which has a binding precedence, therefore the order of penalty which was on the foundation of assessment order u/s 143(3), since the order u/s 143(3) itself is set asid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
