IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 2&3 ITA 401/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1 ..... Appellant Through:Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Puneet Rai, Junior Standing Counsel versus MANOJ HORA ..... Respondent Through: Mr Shashwat Bajpae and Mr Sharad Agarwal, Advocates ITA 402/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1 ..... Appellant Through: Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Puneet Rai, Junior Standing Counsel versus MANOJ HORA ..... Respondent Through: Mr Shashwat Bajpae and Mr Sharad Agarwal, Advocates CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH ORDER % 18.07.2017 CM 18287/2017 (exemption) in ITA 402/2017 1.Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. ITA 401/2017 & ITA 402/2017 Page 1 of 2 ITA 401/2017 ITA 402/2017 2. These two appeals are directed by Revenue against common order dated 28th October, 2016 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in ITA Nos. 829/Del./2014 and 1045/Del./2014 for Assessment Year ( AY ) 2009 2010. ITAT vide impugned order set aside penalty imposed on Respondent Assessee under Section 140A(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ). 3. Although said provision does not provide for any penalty, Revenue sought to justify penalty by invoking Section 221(1) of Act. ITAT disagreed with above submissions of Revenue by pointing out that wrong invocation of provisions had only one consequence i.e. cancellation of order of Assessing Officer ( AO ). 4.There was no question of invocation of Section 221 (1) of Act when AO in fact did not proceed on that basis at all. Court, therefore, find no infirmity in impugned order passed by ITAT. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. 5. appeals are accordingly dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J JULY 18, 2017 rd ITA 401/2017 & ITA 402/2017 Page 2 of 2 Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-1 v. Manoj Hora