TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 854X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orrect by Assessing Officer and disallowance is strictly because of a difference of opinion by Ld. AO. Hon’ble Delhi High Court has accepted assessee’s appeal against quantum order passed by ITAT on the following question of law: “Did the Tribunal fall into error in holding that the deduction claimed by assessee did not fall within what was permissible under section 48 (i) of the Income Tax Act?” Thus once question of law has been admitted by Jurisdictional High Court, the issue becomes debatable and no penalty can be levied under such circumstances. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 4348/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 15-1-2018 - SHRI R.K.PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 88,12,873/-on account of long term capital gain, as against the long term capital loss of ₹ 41,57,965/-claimed by assessee. 2.1 . Against the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who confirmed the addition made by Ld.AO. Against the order of Ld.CIT(A) assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed assessee s appeal vide order dated 18/04/13 in ITA No. 22/del/2012. 2.2. Thereafter show cause notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued to assessee. Ld.AO after considering submissions made by assessee levied a penalty of ₹ 26,71,992/- being 100% of the tax on income. 2.3 . Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT (A) who de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same set of facts and, therefore, they could, at the most, be termed as difference of opinion but nothing to do with the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. Moreover the notes on account which is part of duly certified Audit Report for the said assessment year has very clearly mentioned the sum of ₹ 80,00,000/- so paid to Mr. Anumod Sharma. 4.6 The appellant also cited that their case is similar and well covered with CiT Ahmedabad vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd, on 17 March, 2010 decide by the apex court; and that in none of the proceedings, it has been decided and mentioned that inaccurate particulars have been filed or details supplied by the appellant company found to be inaccura ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However Irrespective of all above and without going in to details, the above quantum appeal has already been accepted by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Following question of law arises for consideration: Did the Tribunal fall into error in holding that the deduction claimed by the assessee did not fall within what was permissible under section 48(i) of the Income Tax Act? 4.11 Since the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dt.15/4/2014, a copy of which has been filed before me by the appellant, has admitted the appeal and the issue has become debatable; therefore, in my opinion and in view of the case law cited by the appellant no penalty could be imposed. ITA No. 4348/Del/2014 A.Y. 2008-09 DCIT vs. Jasisa Tyres (P) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
