Admitting the appeal of the revenue, the Court held that ; The law in CIT v.Nayan Builders & Developers ( 2014) 368 ITR 722 (Bom) does not mean as a matter of rule that in case where the High Court admits an appeal relating to quantum proceedings ipso facto i.e. without anything more, the penalty order gets vitiated. The question of entertaining an appeal from an order imposing / deleting penalty would have to be decided on a case to case basis. There can be no universal rule to the effect that no penalty can be levied if quantum appeal is admitted on a substantial question of law. In fact, the admission of an appeal in quantum proceedings, if arising on a pure interpretation of law or on a claim for deduction in respect of which full disclosure has been made, may, give rise to a possible view, that admission of appeal in the quantum proceedings would suggest no penalty can be imposed as it is a debatable issue. However, it cannot be a universal rule that once an appeal from the order of the Tribunal has been admitted in the quantum proceedings, then, ipso facto the issue is a debatable issue warranting deletion of penalty by the Tribunal. There could be cases where the finding of the Tribunal in quantum proceedings deleting addition could be perverse, then, in such cases, the admission of appeal in quantum proceedings would indicate that an appeal against deletion of penalty on the above account will also warrant admission( ITA No. 701 of 2015, dt. 06.02.2018)( AY. 2006 -07)
PCIT v. Shree Gopal Housing & Plantation Corporation( 2018) 167 DTR 236 / 303 CTR 428 (Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org
S. 271(1)(c): Penalty – Concealment -Admission of appeal by High Court -There can be no universal rule to the effect that no penalty can be levied if quantum appeal is admitted on a substantial question of law [ S.260A ]