TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 441
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 lakhs. He submitted that the Tribunal had earlier confirmed the said addition in the quantum appeal and the assessee has filed appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay challenging the confirmation of addition of Rs. 9.00 lakhs. He submitted that the Hon'ble High Court has admitted the appeal and the said admission makes it clear that the addition is a debatable one and hence the penalty cannot be sustained on that addition. The Ld A.R submitted that, in support of this proposition, the assessee had placed reliance on the decision of co-ordinate bench rendered in the case of M/s Ekta Exports (IT(SS)A No.27/Mum/2011 dated 24.8.2012), wherein the Co-ordinate bench of Tribunal had held that where a substantial question of law ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ber was the same in both the benches and hence a different view should not have been taken and the matter should have been referred to the larger bench. 4. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that there is no mistake apparent from record in the impugned order of the Tribunal, since the Tribunal has only expressed the view that the question of debatable issue would be relevant only in respect of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in view of the Explanation-1 given under sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since the said explanation cannot be extended to the penalty levied u/s 158BFA(2) of the Act, the Tribunal has held that the contention that admission of substantial question of law by the Hon'ble High Court would make the issue debatabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tribunal has also taken the view that the question of examination of bona fides of the assessee shall arise only in respect of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, in view of the Explanation-1 given under sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since the provisions of sec. 158BFA(2) does not contain any provision as that of Explanation 1 to sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Tribunal took the view that the contention that "bona fides of the assessee" due to admission of substantial question of law by the Hon'ble High Court is not applicable in respect of penalty levied u/s 158BFA(2) of the Act. On appreciation of these legal points, the Tribunal did not follow the decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Ekta Exports (supra). 7. Th....