, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.2354/AHD/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 ) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-10(3) AHMEDABAD / VS. NILESHBHAI V.TRIVEDI 102, SHAIL COMPLEX B/H.GIRISH COLD DRINKS CG ROAD AHMEDABAD-09 ' ./#$ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ACYPT 2921P ( '% / APPELLANT ) .. ( &''% / RESPONDENT ) '% ( / APPELLANT BY : SHRI D.K.SINGH, SR.D.R. &''% ) ( / RESPONDENT BY : -NONE- * ) / DATE OF HEARING : 07/05/2013 +,-. ) / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10/5/13 / / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ARISING FRO M THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS)-XVI, AHMEDABAD DATED 01/0 7/2012 PASSED FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AND THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IS IN RESPECT OF DELETION OF PENALTY OF RS.3,70,330/- LEVIED U/S.271 (1)(C) OF IT ACT. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS WORTH TO MENTION THAT NO ON E HAS APPEARED FROM THE SIDE OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE, HOWEVER C ONSIDERING THE ITA NO.2354/AHD /2012 ITO VS. NILESHBHAI V.TRIVEDI ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 2 - SMALLNESS OF THE ISSUE, WE HAVE DECIDED TO PROCEED EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE AFTER HEARING THE LD.SR.DR MR.D.K.SINGH WH O HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 3. AS MENTIONED IN THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT ORD ER PASSED U/S.143(3) DATED 26.12.2008 AND THE PENALTY ORDER U /S.271(1)(C) DATED 25.3.2011 THAT THE PENALTY WAS IMPOSED IN RES PECT OF AN ADDITION MADE U/S.68 OF IT ACT OF RS.20,44,750/- OF IT ACT. AGAINST THE LEVY OF PENALTY, THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 2.3. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS M ADE BY THE APPELLANT AND FACTS OF THE CASE. IN THE INSTANT CA SE, RECORDS INDICATE THAT PURSUANT TO ORDER DATED 23-4-2010 OF A.O. WHICH WAS PASSED IN RESPONSE TO ORDER NO.CIT(A)XVI/ITO/WD.10(4)/209/2009-10 DATED 8-3-201 0 OF MY LD.PREDECESSOR DIRECTING TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.10,94,150/- THE APPELL ANT HAD PREFERRED AN APPEAL. MY LD.PREDECESSOR VIDE HIS OR DER NO.CIT(A)XVI/ITO/WD.10(3)/043/2010-11 DATED 22-9-20 11 HAS DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.10,94,150/-. CONSEQUENTLY, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY QUANTUM ADDITIO N IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THERE CAN BE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR IMPOSITION OF ANY PENALTY AS THE SAME IS LINKED WITH THE AMOUN T OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED ON THE CONCEALED INCOME. WHEN THE CONCEALED INCOME HAS BEEN REDUCED TO NIL, THE AMOUN T OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED ALSO CANNOT BE ARRIVED AT. CON SEQUENTLY, THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF R S.3,70,330/- CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCOR DINGLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.2354/AHD /2012 ITO VS. NILESHBHAI V.TRIVEDI ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 3 - 4. SINCE THE ADMITTED FACTUAL POSITION AS NARRATED BY LD.CIT(A), REPRODUCED SUPRA, WAS THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION ON WHICH THE PENALTY IN QUESTION WAS LEVIED STOOD DELETED, CONSE QUENTLY, THE PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) DO NOT SURVIVE. WE HEREBY A FFIRM THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ( M UKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JU DICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 10/ 5 /2013 0.., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$ %$' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '% / THE APPELLANT 2. &''% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 123 4 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 4 () / THE CIT(A)-XVI, AHMEDABAD 5. 789 &23, 23., :1 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 9;< =* / GUARD FILE. & / BY ORDER, '7 & //TRUE COPY// '/ () ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD