TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 738X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilders [ 2004 (1) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] in which as held that where the additions made in the Assessment Order, on the basis of which penalty for concealment was levied, are deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment, and therefore, in such a case, no such penalty can survive and the same is liable to be cancelled. Appeal filed by Revenue against the impugned order whereby the penalty is deleted on merits, do not stand any more - HON BLE SHRI S S GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri Milind Kulkarni For the Respondent : Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ ORDER PER BENCH; The present bunch of eight appeals filed by the of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dt. 28/06/2017. 3.3 Aggrieved by the levy, the assessee successfully challenged the order before the first appellate authority. 3.4 The Revenue aggrieved thereby brought up the present appeal before us on the following grounds; 1. On facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2. On facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of SHANTIDEVI MAHAVIR PRASAD GUPTA VS INCOME TA OFFICER [ITAT-2014 (MUMBAI)- O], (2014) 151 ITD 445 (MUMBAI) where the Hon'ble ITAT has rejected the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ries Ltd . (Bom) 6. We further note that, the quantum addition in this case of the respondents were challenged in IT(SS)A Nos. 23 to 27/PAN/2015 and the Tribunal vide its order dt 07/10/2021 in has deleted the addition. A copy of such order is placed on record. 7. The fact that the very basis for imposition of penalty, does not survive, there can be no question of any imposition of penalty thereon. When the quantum addition does not survive, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the corresponding quantum addition also cannot survive. We take support from judicial precedent in the case of K.C. Builders vs. ACIT 135 Taxman 461 (SC) , in which the Hon ble Apex Court held that where the additions made in the Assessment Order, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
