Case Law Details
It is observed that the ld. CIT(A) was of the view that since in the quantum appeal, the matter was set aside and sent back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) by the Hon’ble Tribunal vide its order dated 29.12.2010, the penalty order of the ld. A.O. dated 23.03.2010 will not survive.
In fact, the Hon’ble Tribunal in the quantum appeal had restored the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the penalty order should be considered in the light of the quantum appeal decided by the ld. CIT(A). For this reason, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 13.09.2011 and restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to consider the penalty order of the ld. AO in the light of his findings in the quantum appeal.
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD
ITA No. 2825/Ahd./2011- Assessment Year 2005- 2006
I.T.O., Ward-9(4), Ahmedabad
Vs
M/s. Kataria Logistics, A’bad
Date of Pronouncement: 24/02/2012
Order
Per Shri A.Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member:
This appeal is filed by the Revenue, aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad in Appeal No.CIT(A)/XV/ITO/9(4)/15/10- 11 dated 13.09.2011 for the assessment year 2005-2006 passed under section 250 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal.
“1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty of Rs. 1,27,80,657/- levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer.
3. It is therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad may be set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.”
3. At the outset it is observed that the ld. CIT(A) was of the view that since in the quantum appeal, the matter was set aside and sent back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) by the Hon’ble Tribunal vide its order dated 29.12.2010, the penalty order of the ld. AO dated 23.03.2010 will not survive. In fact, the Hon’ble Tribunal in the quantum appeal had restored the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the penalty order should be considered in the light of the quantum appeal decided by the ld. CIT(A). For this reason, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 13.09.2011 and restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to consider the penalty order of the ld. AO in the light of his findings in the quantum appeal.
4. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.
