9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 850X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ember) This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT(A) dated 20.9.2011, for the assessment year 1996-97, in the matter of imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused. From the record, we found that the Assessing Officer has levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of addition made on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the parties, capacity of the lenders and transactions on the basis of cogent facts on records ? 3. We are consistently taking the view that where substantial question of law has been accepted by the Hon'ble High Court, the issue becomes debatable, therefore, no penalty can be imposed for such addition. I.T.A.T. in its order passed in I.T.A.No. 329/Ind/2012 dated 29th January, 2013, in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law 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. 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cordingly, no penalty was imposable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Hosiery, Civil Appeal No. 1117 of 20001 in its order dated 3rd February, 2001, ob served that To be substantial, a question of law must be debatable. Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding as to what is substantial question of law has held that same must be debatable. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
