TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 264
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: This appeal is preferred by the department against order dated 27.10.2015 passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-16, New Delhi wherein, vide the impugned order, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has deleted the penalty of Rs. 29,89,941/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') for assessment year 2002-03. 2. The brief facts of the case are th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... per unit, which was more than the market value taken by the Assessing Officer, no deduction under section 80IA of the Act was allowed. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) upheld the disallowance and on further appeal, the ITAT also upheld the disallowance of deduction. Subsequently, penalty of Rs. 29,89,941/- was imposed by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) deleted the penalty on the grou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction (8)"? 3.1 The Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Liquid Investment & Trading Company in ITA no. 240/2009, no penalty was leviable as the issue on which the penalty had been levied was a debatable issue. It was prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) be upheld. 4. In response, the Ld. Sr. Departmenta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rayed the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) deserved to be set aside and the order of the AO imposing the penalty restore. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the material on record. Undisputedly, this is a case where the penalty levied pertains to an issue in respect of which the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in assessee's own case, for the relevant assessment year has framed s....