TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 269
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') by the Revenue challenges the impugned order dated 27th August, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the 'Tribunal'). The impugned order relates to the Assessment year 2006-07. 2. The Revenue urges the following question of law for our consideration:- 1. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration and Confirmation from the said party of having given and receipt of the advance which were produced before the CIT(A) 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 the circumstances of the case and in law, was the Tribunal justified in not admitting the additional evidence of lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the issue being debatable, not warranting any penalty. 5. The Revenue had filed an appeal from the order of the Tribunal in Nayan Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) deleting the penalty. This appeal being CIT vs. Nayan Builders and Developers [(2014) 368 ITR 722] was not entertained by this Court. It upheld the view of the Tribunal that the imposition of penalty was not justified as a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oints out that it also further records "In our view there was no case made out for imposition of penalty and the same was rightly set aside." . On the basis of the above observation, it is contention of Mr. Tejveer Singh that the appeal from penalty proceeding was not admitted by this Court as on merits no case for imposition of penalty was made out. 7. Mr. Dalal, the learned Counsel for the resp....