Delhi High Court - Orders
Pcit, Delhi-7 vs M/S Victory Township Pvt. Ltd on 2 August, 2022
Author: Manmohan
Bench: Manmohan, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 243/2022
PCIT, DELHI-7 ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Sunil Agarwal, Sr.Standing
Counsel with Mr.Tushar Gupta and
Mr.Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocates.
versus
M/S VICTORY TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
ORDER
% 02.08.2022 C.M.No.33517/2022 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
ITA No.243/2022Present Income Tax Appeal has been filed challenging the Order dated 16th February, 2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in ITA 6231/Del./2017 for the Assessment Year 2009-10.
Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the ITAT failed to appreciate that the penalty proceedings could not have been held to be bad in law in the absence of quantum assessment proceedings reaching finality. He also states that the ITAT has erred in upholding the order of CIT(A) by Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:03.08.2022 17:12:57 substituting its own view without appreciating that the same is cryptic, non- speaking and without reasons.
A perusal of the paper book reveals that both CIT(A) and the ITAT have observed that the quantum appeal against the assessment order framed under Section 153A of the Act was decided by the ITAT in favour of the assessee on the ground that the additions were made by the Assessing Officer in absence of the incriminating material.
This Court is of the view that the present Case is covered by the decision of this Court in PCIT vs. M/s Harsh International Pvt. Ltd. [ITA 620/2019] wherein it was held as under:
"10. This court is also of the opinion that levy of penalty cannot be a matter of course, as sought to be contended by the Revenue. It can only be levied in cases where the concealment of income has been proven. If the quantum order itself has been challenged and this Court has framed substantial questions of law in the appeal preferred by the respondent assessee, it shows that the alleged concealment is not final and the issue is disputable. Consequently, the penalty levied by the assessing officer cannot survive in such a case.
11. It is pertinent to note that this Court in similar cases [CIT Vs. Liquid Investment Ltd, ITA 240/2009, CIT Vs H B Leasing & Finance Co. Ltd. I.T.A. No. 1612/2010 and CIT Vs. Thomson Press India Ltd, ITA 426,440/2013] has upheld the deletion of the penalty on the same ground i.e. the fact that appeals were admitted proved that the issue was debatable. The relevant portion of the orders in CIT Vs. Liquid Investment Ltd (supra) and CIT Vs. Thomson Press India Ltd(supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:-
A) Order dated 5th October, 2010 passed by This Court in CIT vs. Liquid Investment Ltd. (supra):-
Both the CIT(A) as well as the ITAT have set aside the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the issue of deduction under Section 14A of the Act was a Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:03.08.2022 17:12:57 debatable issue. We may also note that against the quantum assessment where under deduction under Section 14A of the Act was prescribed to the assessee, the assessee has preferred an appeal in this Court under Section 260A of the Act which has also been admitted and substantial question of law framed. This itself shows that the issue is debatable. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises in the present case."
B) Order dated 3rd March, 2014 passed by this Court in CIT Vs. Thomson Press India Ltd(supra):-
"This Court is of the opinion that where the question of law as raised by the assessee has been framed and admitted in the circumstances of this case, imposition of penalty cannot be justified. The appeals being bereft of substantial question of law are dismissed."
12. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court finds that no question of law arises in the present appeals for consideration of this Court."
Keeping in view the aforesaid, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. Accordingly the same is dismissed along with pending application.
MANMOHAN, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J AUGUST 2, 2022 KA Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:03.08.2022 17:12:57