TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 851X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4,550/-. Assessment was framed at an income of ₹ 13,20,000/-, wherein income from business was determined at ₹ 5.20 lakhs and addition of ₹ 8 lakhs was made on account of cash credit. Assessment order was confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). In the second appeal filed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal reduced the income from business by ₹ 1.30 lakhs and confirmed the addition on account of cash credit. Against this order of Tribunal dated 31st March, 2008, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 7.11.2008, accepted the substantial question of law u/s 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. With respect to the addition so made, the Assessing Officer lev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advancing of loan to the assessee. Ld. Authorized Representative also relied on the order of Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Agro Chemicals (India), 288 ITR 149, in support of the proposition that where assessee furnished the explanation in support of genuineness of cash credit, no penalty was imposable even where quantum addition has been confirmed. Reliance was also placed on the decision of M.P.High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chirag Ingot Private Limited, 275 ITR 310. On legal issue, it was submitted by the ld. Authorized Representative that Hon'ble High Court has already accepted substantial question of law, therefore, the issue has become debatable and it is not a fit case for levy of penalty and fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd any justification in the order of lower authorities for levying the penalty. Accordingly, we reverse the order of lower authorities and allow the appeal in favour of the assessee. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR supported the order of CIT(A) and contended that the Tribunal have already confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer, therefore, penalty is automatic. The ld. Sr. DR also placed reliance on the decisions reported at 203 ITR 641, 215 ITR 586, 215 ITR 586 and 225 ITR 675 . 7. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the orders of the authorities below and found from record that the business income assessed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) was reduced by the Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on an addition, it become apparent that addition is certainly debatable and under such circumstances penalty cannot be levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The admission of substantial question of law leads credence to the bona fides of the assessee. By following these decisions, similar view has been taken by the I.T.A.T., Indore Bench in the case of Kusum Oswal I.T(SS).A.No. 101/Ind/2009 dated 20th April, 2011. Respectfully following the decision of Coordinate Bench as narrated above, we do not find any substance in action of Assessing Officer for levy of penalty in respect of addition for which substantial question of law has been accepted by the Hon'ble High Court. Even on merits, there is no justification for impos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
