TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 876
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-19, Mumbai, has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 91,89,181 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the imposition of penalty amounting to Rs. 91,89,181 on the addition made by the Income-tax Officer during the assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act for the advance received by the appellant from M/s. Kuber Developers amounting to Rs. 2,73,00,000 under section 68 of the Act. &nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant submitted: (i) details stated in paragraph (a) above ; and (ii) financials and the Income-tax return of the lender, wherein advance given to the appellant is disclosed. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in concluding that the appellant has failed to prove the genuineness/creditworthiness and capacity of the lender. 5. As on the first principles, imposition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions of law : (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of case and in law, is the order of the Tribunal perverse inasmuch as it ignored the basic documents like statement of confirmation of account, bank statement showing receipt of money from and payment of money to M/s. Kuber Developers Corporation and confirmation from the said party of having given and receipt of the advance which were produced before the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal while confirming the addition of Rs. 2.73 crores under section 68 of the Act in the hands of the appellant ? (b) Whether, on the facts and in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; 4. Rupam Mercantile Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2004] 91 ITD 237 (Ahd) (TM) ; and 6. Smt. Ramilaben Ratilal Shah v. Asst. CIT [1998] 60 TTJ (Ahd) 171. Therefore, the learned authorised representative pleaded that impugned penalty should be deleted. 3. On the other hand, the learned Departmental representative submitted that as the quantum addition has been upheld by the Tribunal, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) should be sustained vide which impugned penalty has been confirmed. 4. We have heard both parties and their contentions have carefully been considered. The fact that aforementioned questions of l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in confirming the disallowance of bro kerage Rs. 10,79,221 and legal fees Rs. 2,00,000 ?' 3. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that the additions in respect of which penalty was confirmed have been accepted by the hon'ble Bombay High Court leading to substantial question of law. When the High Court admits substantial question of law on an addition, it becomes apparent that the addition is certainly debatable. In such cir cumstances penalty cannot be levied under section 271(1)(c) as has been held in several cases including Rupam Mercantile Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2004] 91 ITD 237 (Ahd) (TM) and Smt. Ramilaben Ratilal Shah v. Asst. CIT [1998] 60 T....