9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecisions of High Court. It can thus be seen that the Assessee had made a bona fide claim. Neither any income nor any particulars of the income were concealed. As per the settled legal position, merely because a claim is rejected, it would not automatically give rise to penalty proceedings. Reference in this respect can be made to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [ 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ]- Decided in favour of assessee. - Akil Kureshi And Sarang V. Kotwal, JJ. Mr. Sham Walve for Appellant. Mr. Sean Wassodew i/b Rupesh Mandhare for Respondent. P. C. : 1. This Appeal is filed by the Revenue. Following substantial question is presented for our con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, deleted the penalty only on the ground that since the High Court has admitted the Assessee's quantum Appeal, the issue is a debatable one. Thereupon, the Revenue has filed this Appeal. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel for parties, we are not in agreement with the observations of the Tribunal that merely because the High Court has admitted the Appeal and framed substantial questions of law, the entire issue is debatable one and under no circumstances, the penalty could be imposed. In this context, we may refer to a decision of a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dharamshi B. Shah in which referring to the earlier decision of the Court, the following observations were made : 8. Ident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admission. Mere admission of an appeal by the High Court cannot without there being anything further, be an indication that the issue is debatable one so as to delete the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act even if there are independent grounds and reasons to believe that the assessee's case would fall under the mischief envisaged in said clause (c) of sub section (1) of section 271 of the Act. In other words, unless there is any indication in the order of admission passed by the High Court simply because the tax appeal is admitted, would give rise to the presumption that the issue is debatable and that therefore, penalty should be deleted. 12. This is not to suggest that no such intention can be gathered from the order of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , we can safely come to the conclusion that the entire issue was a debatable one. The dispute between the Assessee and the Revenue was with reference to actual payment for purchase of the flat and whether when the Assessee had purchased one more flat, though contagious, could the Assessee claim exemption under Section 54F of the Act. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that this latter issue is covered by the decisions of High Court. It can thus be seen that the Assessee had made a bona fide claim. Neither any income nor any particulars of the income were concealed. As per the settled legal position, merely because a claim is rejected, it would not automatically give rise to penalty proceedings. Reference in this respect can be made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
