Income Tax

When substantial question of law admitted by High Court, it is apparent that addition is debatable – ITAT

When substantial question of law admitted by High Court, it is apparent that addition is debatable – ITAT

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 1274 (2017) (06) ITAT

Assessment Year : 1999-2000
Date/Month of Pronouncement: May, 2017

Important Case Laws Cited relied upon:
Rupam Mercantile vs. DCIT (2004) 91 ITD 237
Smt. Ramila Ratilal Shah vs. ACIT (1998) 60 TTJ (Ahd) 171
CIT vs. Aditya Birla Power Co. Ltd. in ITA No.851 of 2014

Brief Facts of the Case:
The return of the appellant assessee firm was taken for scrutiny. The assessment was completed and an addition was made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). The matter went to the Tribunal and The ITAT partly allowed the appeal but confirmed the addition.

The Assessing Officer (ÁO’) levied penalty for the addition made u/s 68 which was under the challenge in the present appeal.

Contentions of the appellant assessee:
It was submitted that the quantum addition confirmed by the Tribunal was challenged before Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble High Court has admitted the appeal of the assessee. It was further submitted that since the Hon’ble High Court had admitted the substantial question of law on the addition made by the Tribunal, therefore this addition wa certainly debatable. And in this circumstances the penalty cannot be levied as held in various judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, Hon’ble Bombay High Court and Hon’ble Karnataka High Court etc. therefore, penalty may be deleted.

Observations made by the Tribunal:
It was observed that the addition had been confirmed by the Tribunal and assessee was before the Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble High Court had admitted the question of law.

The Tribunal opined that,

“when the substantial question of law has been admitted by High Court on addition, it becomes apparent that addition is certainly debatable.”

Held:
Following the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, the penalty was deleted.

Download Full Judgment

Share

Recent Posts

  • Empanelment

FDCM invites application for empanelment of practising CAs/ Chartered Accountant Firms

Invitation For Empanelment Of Practising Chartered Accountants / Chartered Accountant Firms Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (FDCM Limited), Nagpur,…

2 days ago
  • Empanelment

PGRI invites application for CAs for empanelment for Circulation Verification work

Press Registrar General of India (PGRI) invites application for empanelment of Chartered Accountants. The Press Registrar General of India manages…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

CBDT notifies revised Form for registration as valuer & authorised income tax practitioner

CBDT notifies revised Form No. 169 for making application for registration as a valuer under section 514 and authorised income…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Curtailing time to file reply to notice u/s 148A(b) from 30 days prejudiced assessee’s right – HC

Curtailing time to file reply to notice u/s 148A(b) from statutorily available 30 days to 15 days seriously prejudiced assessee’s…

3 days ago
  • Income Tax

For registration u/s 12AB, applicability of proviso to section 2(15) can’t be adjudicated

At the stage of registration u/s 12AB, the CIT(E) not empowered to adjudicate applicability of provisio to section 2(15) of…

4 days ago
  • Income Tax

Flower bed area not included in “built up area” to calculate eligible limit u/s 80IB(10)

Flower bed area could not be included in the definition of “built up area” to calculate eligible limit of 1000…

5 days ago