, ""
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "H" BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, AM AND PAWAN SINGH, JM
./I.T.A. No.375/Mum/2014
( / Assessment Year:2006-07)
M/s Hiranandani Akruti J V, / Dy.. Commissioner of Income Tax-
Akruti Trade Centre, CC 36, Room No.11,
Vs.
Road No.7, Gr.Floor, Aayakar Bhavan,
Marol, MIDC, M K Road,
Andheri (E), Mumbai-400020.
Mumbai-400093
( /Appellant) .. ( / Respondent)
./I.T.A. No.1175/Mum/2014
( / Assessment Year:2006-07)
Asstt. Commissioner of Income / M/s Hiranandani Akruti J V,
Tax-CC 32, Room No.32(2), M/s Hicons Developers,
Vs.
Gr.Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Road No.7,
Aayalkar Bhavan, Marol, MIDC,
M K Road, Marine Lines. Andheri (E),
Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400093
( /Appellant) .. ( / Respondent)
./ ./PAN. :AAAAH1443H
/ Revenue by S/Shri Ashok Jha &
K Mohandas
/Assessee by Shri Pawan Ved
/ Date of Hearing :8.10.2015
/Date of Pronouncement:8.10.2015
/ O R D E R
Per B R Baskaran, AM:
The appeal filed by the assessee as well as Revenue relate to the
assessment year 2006-07.
2. In appeal No.375/Mum/2014, the assessee is aggrieved by the
decision of ld.CIT(A) in initiating the penalty proceedings under section
2
I T A N o . 1 1 7 5 / Mu m / 2 0 1 4
3 7 5 / M/ 2 0 1 4
271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In appeal No.1175/Mum/2014,
the Revenue is aggrieved by the decision of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the
penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
3. We heard the parties and perused the record. It was pointed out by
the ld.DR that the appeal No.375/Mum/2014 filed by the assessee is
directed against the initiation of penalty proceeding by the ld.CIT(A). The
ld. DR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has not ultimately passed any penalty
order. He further submitted the assessee cannot file any appeal for mere
initiation of penalty proceedings. The ld. AR did not dispute these factual
aspects. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee being
ITA No.375/Mum/2014 in limine as not maintainable.
4. With regard to the appeal filed by the Revenue, it was brought to
our notice that the addition on which the impugned penalty was levied has
since been deleted by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, vide its order
dated 7.5.2014 passed in ITA No.374/Mum/2014 for the assessment year
2006-07. Consequent thereto, the penalty order does not have legs to
stand on its own and hence is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the
appeal filed by the Revenue is also liable to be dismissed.
5. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.
Pronounced accordingly on 8th October, 2015.
8th October, 2015
Sd sd
(PAWAN SINGH) ( B.R. BASKARAN)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai: 8th October, 2015.
.../ SRL , Sr. PS
3
I T A N o . 1 1 7 5 / Mu m / 2 0 1 4
3 7 5 / M/ 2 0 1 4
/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. / The Appellant
2. / The Respondent.
3. () / The CIT(A)- concerned
4. / CIT concerned
5. , , /
DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned
6. / Guard file.
True copy / BY ORDER,
(Asstt. Registrar)
, /ITAT, Mumbai
|