9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MEMBER This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-VIII, Delhi dated 30.10.2012 in Appeal No. 361/2011-12 for AY 2002-03 by which the CIT(A) upheld and confirmed the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for short the Act). 2. The sole ground raised by the assessee reads as under:- 2. The AO has wrongly imposed penalty of Rs. 173 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al receipt?? 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that in view of decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi including decision in the case of CIT vs. Liquid Investments Ltd. in ITA No. 240/2009 dated 5.10.2010 that when a question of law has been framed on a particular issue then the issue becomes debatable and no penalty is sustainable in regard to such impugned ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le High Court has admitted appeal of the assessee, filed against the order of the Tribunal, in regard to quantum proceedings and a question of law as reproduced hereinabove, has been framed therein. The DR also submitted that the quantum and penalty proceedings are independent and separate and the revenue authorities are empowered to evaluate each proceedings on its own footings. The DR supported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been framed then the issue becomes debatable and in this situation no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable on the assessee. 7. Respectfully following the above decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Liquid Investment Ltd. (supra) and other relevant decisions we are inclined to hold that the penalty was imposed on the assessee pertaining to the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
