9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the respondent/assessee. It is possible, in a given case, that both limbs are attracted; however, even that aspect was not made clear in the notice issued by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. [ See Pr Commissioner of Income Tax-3 v Ms. Minu Bakshi [ 2022 (7) TMI 1307 - DELHI HIGH COURT] ]. We are also aligned to the view that the issue involved was debatable at the relevant point in time, which took a different turn only when this court delivered its judgment in Ansal Housing Finance Leasing Co. Ltd. [ 2012 (11) TMI 323 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Decided in favour of assessee. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA For the Appellant Through: Mr Sanjay Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms Easha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rn of Income (ROI) on 30.09.2011. In the ROI, the respondent/assessee had declared its income amounting to Rs. 1,20,19,74,162/-. 10.1. It appears that the respondent/assessee had filed a revised return, whereby, the total taxable income was pegged at Rs. 1,19,91,36,679/-. 10.2 Evidently, the respondent/assessee was subjected to scrutiny assessment. Pursuant to the assessment, the respondent/assessee s income was assessed at Rs. 1,25,87,20,383/-. 10.3 Significantly, two additions were made to the revised ROI of the respondent/assessee: (i) First, with regard to the Annual Letting Value (ALV) of the vacant commercial/self-occupied assets. In this behalf, the addition was crystallized at Rs. 5,90,67,704/-. (ii) Second, on account of the disall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent on 31.10.2012 in the matter of CIT vs. Ansal Housing Finance Leasing Co. Ltd. [2013] 354 ITR 180 (Del.). 15.2 In other words, the argument was that since it was a debatable issue, and, hence, the plausible view, penalty could not have been levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 16. Furthermore, it was also contended that the penalty notice did not indicate which of the two limbs provided under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was triggered qua the respondent/assessee i.e., as to whether the respondent/assessee had concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 17. CIT(A) agreed with the respondent/assessee qua both counts: Firstly, at a relevant point in time, the issue under consideration was debatable a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
