Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M/S. Kothari Jewels Private Limited, ... on 14 September, 2018
vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM
vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 838/JP/2018
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11
Deputy Commissioner of cuke M/s Kothari Jewels (P) Ltd.,
Income-tax, Central Circle- Vs. 102 Queen's diamond
02, Jaipur apartment, M.P. Marg, Opera
House, Mumbai-400004
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCA2717Q
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Shri J. C. Kulhari (JCIT)
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj l@
s Assessee by : None
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 10/09/2018
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement :14/09/2018
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of ld. CIT (A)- 04, Jaipur dated 19.04.2018 for Assessment Year 2010-11 wherein the Revenue has challenged the deletion of penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) read with 153A wherein the AO assessed the total income at Rs. 1,24,42,970/- making addition of Rs. 1,04,49,607/-. 2 ITA No. 838/JP/2018
DCIT, Jaipur vs. M/s Kothari Jewels (P) Ltd., Mumbai During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and thereafter, the penalty was levied vide order dated 31.03.2016. Against the levy of penalty, the assessee moved an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and besides submissions on merit, submitted that in the quantum proceedings, the entire addition made by the AO has been deleted by the Tribunal vide its order No. 453/JP/2015 dated 4.4.2018. The ld. CIT(A) taking the same into consideration held that the penalty imposed by the AO on such addition does not subsist and he directed to delete the penalty so levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee as the notice was returned unserved.
4. After pursuing material on record and hearing the ld. DR, we do not see any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) as the very basis for levy of penalty has been deleted in the quantum proceedings by the Co- ordinate Bench vide its order dated 4.4.2018. In light of the same, where the very basis for the levy of penalty has been deleted by the Co- ordinate Bench, there is no basis for sustaining the penalty so levied by the AO. In the result, we affirm the order of the ld CIT(A) and the ground so taken by the Revenue is hereby dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 3 ITA No. 838/JP/2018
DCIT, Jaipur vs. M/s Kothari Jewels (P) Ltd., Mumbai Order pronounced in the open Court on 14/09/2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
¼fot; iky jko½ ¼foØe flag ;kno½
(Vijay Pal Rao) (Vikram Singh Yadav)
U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur
fnukad@Dated:- 14/09/2018
*Ganesh Kr.
vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzfs 'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- DCIT, Jaipur
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- M/s Kothari Jewels (P) Ltd., Mumbai
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT
4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A)
5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur.
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File { ITA No. 838/JP/2018} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar