TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the relevant assessment year has framed substantial question of law. Thus, it is very much apparent that the issue is a debatable issue. Accordingly, in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Liquid Investment & Trading Company (2010 (10) TMI 1021 - DELHI HIGH COURT), we find no reason to interfere with the act of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) in deleting the penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome of ₹ 608,36,69,250/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and, subsequently, the assessment was completed at an income of ₹ 641,60,95,880/- after making certain disallowances/additions. The assessee had made a claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act amounting to ₹ 83,75,186/- in respect of its power generation unit at its manufacturing facility at Gurgaon. The AO, however, di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ging the deletion of the penalty. 3. At the outset, the Ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee/respondent submitted that the Hon ble Delhi High Court has admitted the assessee s appeal against the quantum addition confirmed by the ITAT on which the penalty had been imposed by the AO but deleted by the Ld. CIT (Appeals). The Ld. Authorised Representative placed on record copy of order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly argued that, undisputedly, the quantum addition/disallowance had been confirmed by the ITAT and, therefore, the penalty had been wrongly deleted by the Ld. CIT (Appeals). The Ld. Sr. DR also placed reliance on the following judicial precedents: (1) Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [(2007) 295 ITR 244]; (2) CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. [191 Taxman 179 (Delhi) / [2010] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a debatable issue. Accordingly, in view of judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Liquid Investment Trading Company (supra), we find no reason to interfere with the act of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) in deleting the penalty. We also note that a similar penalty on identical addition was deleted by the ITAT Delhi Bench in assessee s own case for assessment year 2003-04 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
