Dispute between the assessee and the Department is with regard to payment of purchase of flat whether deduction u/s 54F is available. The assessee had made bonafide claim. Neither any income nor any particulars of income were concealed. The Tribunal deleted the penalty on the sole ground that quantum appeal is admitted by the High Court. Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that, merely because the addition is confirmed levy of penalty is not justified. relied on CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC).Court also observed that Merely because the High Court has admitted the Appeal and framed substantial questions of law, it cannot be said that the entire issue is debatable one and under no circumstances, penalty could be imposed. Referred, CIT v Dharamshi B. Shah (2014) 366 ITR 140 (Guj.) (HC) (ITA No. 169 of 2017, dt. 19.03.2019) (AY. 2006 -07)
PCIT v. Rasiklal M. Parikh (Bom.)(HC), www.itatonline.org
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment–Debatable issue-Merely because the addition is confirmed levy of penalty is not justified- Deletion of penalty on the sole ground that the High Court has admitted the Appeal and framed substantial questions of law, it cannot be said that the entire issue is debatable one and under no circumstances, penalty could be imposed.