IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                DELHI BENCH `F', NEW DELHI
         Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Smt. Beena Pillai, JM
             ITA No. 3479/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2002-03
Ms. Neeta Gupta,                  Vs ITO,
75/5571, Ragher Pura, Karol Bagh,    Ward-33(4),
New Delhi                            New Delhi
(APPELLANT)                          (RESPONDENT)
PAN No. AAKPG1073D
                 Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Yadav, Adv.
                 Revenue by :

Date of Hearing : 03.12.2015      Date of Pronouncement : 08.12.2015

                                ORDER
Per N. K. Saini, AM:

     This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated
24.03.2015 of ld. CIT-XVII, New Delhi.

2.   The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates
to the confirmation of penalty of Rs. 4,22,770/- levied by the
AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act). During the course of hearing the ld.
Counsel for the assessee at the very outset stated that the
penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied in this case on the
basis of the additions made by the AO while framing the
assessment vide order dated 20.12.2007, which was confirmed
by the ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 31.10.2012. Thereafter, the
                                     2                    ITA No. 3479/Del/2015
                                                               Neeta Gupta






AO issued the notice dated 26.12.2012 to the assessee to show
cause as to why the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not
be levied. The AO did not accept the submission of the
assessee that the issue may be kept in abeyance till the
disposal of appeal of the ITAT and levied the penalty u/s
271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,22,770/-. The said
penalty was sustained by the ld. CIT(A), however, on the
appeal of the assessee on quantum addition in ITA No.
239/Del/2013, the ITAT Delhi Bench, SMC-1, New Delhi vide
order dated 30.11.2015 held that the reopening was bad in law
and accordingly the assessment order dated 20.12.2007 was set
aside and as such there is no addition survives on the basis of
which the impugned penalty was levied.

3.   In his rival submissions the ld. DR supported the order of the
authorities below.






4.   We have considered the submissions of both the parties and
perused the material available on record. In the present case, it is noticed
that the assessment order dated 20.12.2007 which is the basis for levying
the impugned penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been held as bad in
law vide order dated 30.11.2015 in ITA No. 239/Del/2013 by the ITAT
Delhi Bench, SMC-1, New Delhi. Therefore, the impugned penalty does
not survive. In that view of the matter the impugned order is set aside
                                        3                    ITA No. 3479/Del/2015
                                                                  Neeta Gupta

and the penalty amounting to Rs. 4,22,770/- levied by the AO and
sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is deleted.

5.       In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
 (Order Pronounced in the Court on 08/12/2015)

       Sd/-                                            Sd/-
   (Beena Pillai)                                   (N. K. Saini)
JUDICIAL MEMBER                                ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 08/12/2015
*Subodh*
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5.DR: ITAT
                                                      ASSISTANT REGISTRAR