|COURT:||Bombay High Court|
|CORAM:||A. K. Menon J., M. S. Sanklecha J|
|CATCH WORDS:||concealment of income, debatable issue, furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, penalty|
|DATE:||February 17, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)|
|DATE:||March 9, 2017 (Date of publication)|
|FILE:||Click here to download the file in pdf format|
|S. 271(1)(c): If the quantum appeal is admitted by the High Court, it means that the issue is debatable and penalty cannot be levied. Argument of the Dept that Nayan Builders 368 ITR 722 (Bom) does not lay down this proposition is not correct|
(i) The Tribunal followed its decision in Nayan Builders and Developers Pvt.Ltd. vs. The Income Tax Officer in Income Tax Appeal No. 2379/Mum/2009 rendered on 18th March, 2011 and the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs Liquid Investment and Trading Co (ITA No.240/2009) rendered on 5th October, 2010 to hold that when an appeal has been admitted in quantum proceedings by the High Court, then that itself is an evidence of the issue being debatable, not warranting any penalty.
(ii) The Revenue had filed an appeal from the order of the Tribunal in Nayan Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) deleting the penalty. This appeal being CIT vs. Nayan Builders and Developers [(2014) 368 ITR 722] was not entertained by this Court. It upheld the view of the Tribunal that the imposition of penalty was not justified as admission of appeal in quantum proceeding on this issue as substantial question of law was proof enough of the issue being debatable. The aforesaid decision in Nayan Builders and Developers Pvt.Ltd (supra) was also followed by this Court in CIT-8 vs. Aditya Birla Power Co. Ltd. in Income Tax Appeal No. 851 of 2014 rendered on 2nd December, 2015.
(iii) However, Mr. Tejveer Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant- Revenue seeks to distinguish the decision of this Court in Nayan Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) on the ground that this Court had after recording the fact that where appeals from orders in quantum proceedings of this Court have been admitted as giving rise to substantial question of law then that itself discloses that the issue is debatable. However, Mr. Singh points out that it also further records
“In our view there was no case made out for imposition of penalty and the same was rightly set aside.”
On the basis of the above observation, it is contention of Mr. Tejveer Singh that the appeal from penalty proceeding was not admitted by this Court as on merits no case for imposition of penalty was made out.
(iv) Mr. Dalal, the learned Counsel for the respondent-assessee invited our attention to the order of the Tribunal dated 18th March, 2011 in the case of Nayan Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd (supra). On perusal of the Tribunal order dated 18th March, 2011 we note that the Tribunal in Nayan Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd (supra) had deleted the penalty only on the ground that as substantial question of law had been admitted by this Court in quantum proceedings the issue is debatable. It was on the basis of the aforesaid reasoning of the Tribunal in Nayan Builders and Developers Pvt.Ltd. (supra), that this Court held that no penalty is imposable. Thus the distinction sought to be made by Mr. Tejveer Singh does not assist the Revenue, as it does not exist.
(v) In view of the decision taken by this Court in Nayan Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd (supra) as well as in Aditya Birla Power Co. Ltd. (supra) the proposed question does not give rise to any substantial question of law.