9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment years were on the basis of seized documents establishing the fact of running an undisclosed business, taxing the income from which has been confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal ? 2. By our order dated 28.6.2011, we had issued notice for final disposal making following observations : " Counsel for the Revenue pointed out that tribunal has deleted penalty only on the ground that High Court having admitted assessee's appeal, issue can be stated to be debatable. Issue notice for final disposal, returnable on 26.7.2011." 3. In response to notice issued, learned counsel, Shri Soparkar appeared for the respondent - assessee. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both side. We propose to dispose of the Tax Appeal finally by thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by the Hon'ble High Court. In the case under consideration, we are of the opinion that in view of findings of the ITAT in their order dated 26.10.2005 in the case of Shri Pradeep S Shah and now when the Hon'ble High Court have admitted even a question relating to perversity of the order dated 23.11.2007 in ITA Nos.1076, 1077 and 1089/Ahd/1998 of the ITAT, the issue as to whether income from Minal Service station can be assessed in the hands of the assessee, becomes debatable. When two views, are possible, no penalty can be imposed is a principle that has been enunciated in the decision in the case of CIT v. P. K. Narayanan [1999] 238 ITR 905 and CIT Vs HMA Udyog P. Ltd., 211 CTR 543(Del). A plea or claim which is held by the Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leviable under Section 271(1)(c) was imposed. Said order of the Assessing Officer was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The Tribunal erred in reversing the orders of the Revenue Authorities. 9. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel, Mr.Soparkar, submitted that though not the sole ground, factum of the High Court admitting the quantum of appeal would be a relevant ground while examining the question of penalty. 10. Having, thus, heard learned counsel for the parties, we reiterate that the sole ground on which the Tribunal deleted the penalty was that with respect to the quantum additions, the assessee had approached the High Court and High Court had admitted the appeal framing substantial questions of law for consideration. In vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of Court even if so expressed either explicitly or in implied terms. This is also not to suggest that in no case, admission of a Tax Appeal would be a relevant factor for the purpose of deciding validity of a penalty order. This is only to put the record straight insofar as the opinion that the Tribunal as expressed in the present impugned order viz. that upon mere admission of a Tax Appeal on quantum additions, is an indication that the issue is debatable one and that therefore, penalty should automatically be deleted without any further reasons or grounds emerging from the record. 13. This is precisely what has been done by the Tribunal in the present case. Order of the Tribunal, therefore, cannot be sustained. Question framed is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
