आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.425/PUN/2020 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 7, Pune ......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. Tieto India Pvt. Ltd., Wing 1, Cluster D, EON Free Zone, MIDC, Kharadi Knowledge Park, Pune – 411014 PAN : AAACF3424C ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Siddhesh Chaugule Revenue by : Shri M.G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 09-06-2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 13-06-2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : This appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 28-01-2020 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune [‘CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2010-11. 2. We note that this appeal was filed with a delay of 80 days. After hearing both the parties, we find that the reasons stated by the assessee 2 ITA No.425/PUN/2020, A.Y. 2010-11 are bonafide which really prevented the assessee to file the present appeal in time. Therefore, the delay of 80 days are condoned. 3. The appellant-revenue raised three grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the CIT(A) justified in deleting the penalty levied by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. At the outset, we note that the quantum appeal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010-11 in ITA No. 1398/PUN/2015 has been remanded to the file of CIT(A) for re-adjudication in view of the issue of Management Service Fee being covered by APA vide its order dated 19-01-2018. We find the said order of which is at Page No. 1 of the paper book of assessee. The CIT(A) in the impugned order at Para No. 2.4 taking into consideration the fact of remanding the issue by the ITAT deleted the penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by holding when the quantum is no more in existence the penalty does not survive. The ld. AR prayed to remand the issue to the file of CIT(A) and drew our attention to the provisions of section 275(1A) of the Act. We note that sub-section (1A) of section 275 explains where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject matter of appeal to CIT(A), ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court is passed, an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty is to be passed on the basis of assessment as revised by giving effect to such order of CIT(A), ITAT, High Court, Supreme Court or section 263 or 264 of the Act. Therefore, there is no dispute regarding the remanding the issue of Management Service Fee to the file of CIT(A) for re-adjudication in terms of APA. Therefore, we deem 3 ITA No.425/PUN/2020, A.Y. 2010-11 it proper to remand the issue to the file of CIT(A). The assessee is liberty to file evidence, if any, in support of its claim. Thus, the grounds raised by the Revenue fails and are dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13 th June, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (R.S. Syal) (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिनाांक / Dated : 13 th June, 2022. रदव आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-13, Pune 4. The Pr. CIT-4, Pune 5. दवभागीय प्रदतदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, “बी” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गार्ड फ़ाइल / Guard File. //सत्यादपत प्रदत// True Copy// आिेशानुसार / BY ORDER, वररष्ठ दनजी सदचव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune