IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.2134/BANG/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU. VS. SMT. G. RENUKA, NO.903, BARTON CENTRE, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001. PAN: ABYPR 5731L APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.R. REDDY, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), BENGALURU RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V. SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 28.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.08.2017 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) INTER ALIA ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A)-11, BENGALURU HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE PENALTY APPEAL WHEREAS THE QUANTUM APPEAL ON THE SAME ISSUE AND THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR, WAS UPHELD BY THE LEARNED CIT(A)-11, BENGALURU VIDE ORDER IN ITA NO.49/DCIT,CC-1(3)/CIT(A)VI/BNG/2013-14 DATED 26.12 .2014. IT(SS)A NO.2134/BANG/2016 PAGE 2 OF 3 2. WHETHER THE LD.CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO, BASED ON THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLAN ATION 5A TO THE SECTION 271 OF THE IT ACT, WHEREIN, IN THE CASE S IN CONNECTION WITH SEARCH PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED U/S 132, THE ASSE SSEE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEALED THE INCOME/FURNISHED INACC URATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME, IF ANY ENTRY IN THE DOC UMENT REPRESENTS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUCH INCOME H AS NOT BEEN DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FURNISHED BEFORE T HE DATE OF SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE IT ACT, THEN THE AO IS JUSTIF IED IN LEVYING PENALTY U/S 271 (1 )(C) OF THE ACT. 3. WHETHER THE LD.CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO, WHEREIN AFTER GIVING SEVERAL OPPO RTUNITIES, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ATTENDED THE OFFICE AND HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE FACT/PROVIDE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT ANY LOAN WAS RECEIVED BY HER FROM THE SAID PARTY (M/ S KRISHNA S TRUCTURAL STEEL INDIA LTD.) AMOUNTING TO A SUBSTANTIAL SUM OF RS.2, 37,00,000 /-. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSME NT ORDER AND THE ADDITIONS ON WHICH THE IMPUGNED PENALTY WAS LEVIED, HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) CANNOT BE LEVIED. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN QUANTUM IS PLACED ON RECOR D AT PAGES 9 TO 21 OF THE COMPILATION. THE LD. DR DID NOT DISPUTE THESE FACT S. 3. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AU THORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN QUANTUM IN ITA NO.416/BANG/2015 FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN QUANTUM HAS BEEN KNOCKED DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL, HAVING HELD THAT NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS N OT SERVED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD. SINCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN KNOCKED DOWN IT(SS)A NO.2134/BANG/2016 PAGE 3 OF 3 AND ALL ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN DELETED, THE IMPUGNED P ENALTY LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT DOES NOT SURVIVE. WE ACCORDIN GLY UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS), WHO HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE PENALTY L EVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2017. SD/- SD/- ( J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ) ( SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 31 ST AUGUST, 2017. / D ESAI S MURTHY / COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, BANGALORE.