9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 1143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee against the order CIT(A), dated 9-12-2011 for assessment year 2005-06, in the matter of imposition of penalty of Rs. 27,27,675/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. At the outset, learned AR placed on record, the order of Hon'ble Bombay High Court dated 30-11-2011, wherein the substantial question of law has been accepted. As per learned AR, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- as income, in the Profit and Loss Account under the head „other income‟ in the A.Y.2003-2004 ?" When the issue is debatable and substantial question of law has been accepted by the Hon'ble High Court, no penalty is leviable. This issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Nayan Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. dated 24-7-2014 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court admits substantial question of law on an addition, it becomes apparent that the addition is certainly debatable. In such circumstances penalty cannot be levied u/s 271 (l1)(c) as has been held in several cases including Rupam Mercantile Vs. DCIT [(2004) 91 ITD 237 (Ahd) (TM)] and Smt.Ramila Ratilal Shah Vs. ACfT [(1998) 60 IT] (Ahd) 171]. The admission of substantial question of law by the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contested the penalty imposed with regard to addition of bad debts of Rs. 74,54,700/- against which quantum appeal has been admitted by the Hon'ble High Court and not the penalty on other additions. Accordingly, our conclusion with regard to penalty not leviable u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is confined to the addition made on account of bad debts for which the hon'ble High Court has admitted substant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
