- 1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH AAHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND D.C.AGRAWAL, AM INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD-6(1), ROOM NO.614, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT. V/S . SHRI ASHOK MAHIPATRAO GAEKWAD, N.R. RESIDENCE COMPLEX, PAREKH FADIA, JUNA GAM, SONGADH, DIST. SURAT. PAN NO.AAWPG 3274C (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- SHRI P. ORAM, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY:- NONE O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER. THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF CIT(A) IV SURAT, DATED 28 TH JULY, 2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 CHALLENGING THE CANCELLATION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E AND PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. NONE APPEARE D ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS PROCEED ED EX PARTE. ITA NO.2977/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR :2005-06 2 3. LD. CIT(A) NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT WHEN THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THERE IS NO CASE OF CONCEALING THE INCOME OR FURNISHING I NACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. PENALTY WAS ACCORDINGLY CANCELLED. 4. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY I NFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BECAUSE IF THE ADDITIONS ON WHICH THE PENALTY WAS IMPOSED HAVE BEEN DELETED NOTHING SURVIVES IN FAVOU R OF THE REVENUE TO LEVY PENALTY AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 5. AS A RESULT DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 05/01/2010 SD/- SD/- (D.C.AGRAWAL) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD, DATED : 05/01/2010 MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR