TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atable. - Decided in favour of assessee. - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1498 OF 2014 - - - Dated:- 17-2-2017 - M.S. SANKLECHA A.K. MENON, JJ. Mr. Tejveer Singh for the Appellant. Mr. Sameer Dalal for the Respondent. P.C. : 1. This Appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') by the Revenue challenges the impugned order dated 27th August, 2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of case and in law, is the order of the Tribunal perverse inasmuch as it ignored the basic documents like Statement of Confirmation of Account, Bank Statement showing receipt of money from and payment of money to M/s.Kuber Developers Corporation and Confirmation from the said party of having given and receipt of the advance which were produced be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Appeal No. 2379/Mum/2009 rendered on 18th March, 2011 and the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs Liquid Investment and Trading Co (ITA No.240/2009) rendered on 5th October, 2010 to hold that when an appeal has been admitted in quantum proceedings by the High Court, then that itself is an evidence of the issue being debatable, not warranting any penalty. 5. The Revenue had fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of this Court in Nayan Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) on the ground that this Court had after recording the fact that where appeals from orders in quantum proceedings of this Court have been admitted as giving rise to substantial question of law then that itself discloses that the issue is debatable. However, Mr. Singh points out that it also further records In our view there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asis of the aforesaid reasoning of the Tribunal in Nayan Builders and Developers Pvt.Ltd. (supra), that this Court held that no penalty is imposable. Thus the distinction sought to be made by Mr. Tejveer Singh does not assist the Revenue, as it does not exist. 8. In view of the decision taken by this Court in Nayan Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd (supra) as well as in Aditya Birla Power Co. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
