IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
  12.01.2011 
.
.
 Present:        Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Anshul 
 Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. 
 None for the respondent. 
.
 +ITA No. 21/2011 
.
 The Assessing Officer passed an assessment order in respect of the 
 assessment year 1996-1997 and made certain additions.  At the same time, penalty 
 proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were also 
 initiated.  On the basis of those additions it held a view that the assessee had 
 given incorrect address and concealed certain particulars of income. 
 Against the order of the Assessing Officer, mentioning additions 
 in the quantum proceedings, the assessee preferred an appeal which was allowed 
 by the CIT(A) and the additions were deleted.  This order was confirmed by the 
 ITAT. 
 Since the assessing officer has also imposed penalty, this order 
 was also challenged by the assessee.  The Tribunal has set aside the order of 
 penalty vide its decision dated 19th February, 2010 on the ground that the 
 additions made by the Assessing Officer, on the basis of which penalty 
 proceedings were initiated, have been deleted by the ITAT.  We may note that the 
 revenue had filed an appeal against the decision of the Tribunal in quantum 
 proceedings i.e. ITA No. 1754/2010 and this appeal is disposed of vide order 
 dated        18th October, 2010, remitting the case back to the Assessing 
 Officer.  Though, as of today, there are no additions and entire exercise is to 
 be undertaken by the Assessing Officer afresh. 
 In view thereof, the penalty which was imposed on the basis of the 
 earlier orders has no legs to stand and is rightly set aside by the Tribunal. 
 We fail to understand as to why the present appeal was filed on 2nd December, 
 2010, when the outcome of the quantum appeal i.e. ITA No. 1574/2010 was already 
 known to the Department on the basis of which it is clear that the penalty 
 imposed has lost its basis. 
 In these circumstances, we were inclined to impose certain costs 
 earlier, however, in view of passionate plea made by learned counsel we restrain 
 ourselves from imposing cost. 
.
.
 A.K. SIKRI, J. 
.
 M.L. MEHTA, J. 
.
 JANUARY 12, 2011 
 AK 
.
.
.
.
.
.
 2 #