9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 872X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , J 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. This Petition pertains to assessment year 2018-2019. The Petitioner challenges an order dated 8 February 2022 under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act), which imposes a penalty of Rs.25,05,052/-on the Peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that this Petition be entertained though the Petitioner may have already filed an Appeal to save the bar of limitation. 5. Mr Sharma, the learned Counsel for the Respondents, submitted that there was no hindrance to the Assessing Officer imposing the penalty, even though a quantum appeal may have been preferred. He referenced Section 275(1)(a) of the IT Act to support his argument. 6. We ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcise the powers under Section 275(1)(a) of the IT Act. The Assessing Officer has only observed that since the ITBA data did not reflect the institution of the quantum Appeal, the Assessing Officer felt that he had no alternative but to impose a penalty. 9. Thus, this is not a case where the penalty was imposed after independent application of mind. The main grounds for imposing the penalty were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h proceedings for the imposition of penalty should they so desire upon the disposal of the Petitioner's quantum Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). 12. With liberty in the above terms, we quash and set aside the impugned penalty order dated 8 February 2022 without any cost order. 13. Mr Jain states that the Petitioner will now withdraw/not press the Appeal against the impugned penalty orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
