Delhi High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Insilco Ltd. on 17 September, 2010
Author: Manmohan
#14
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 1404/2010
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Senior
Standing Counsel.
versus
INSILCO LTD. ..... Respondent
Through Mr. V.P. Gupta, Advocate
% Date of Decision: 17th September, 2010
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.
MANMOHAN, J:
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1961")
challenging the order dated 10th July, 2009 passed by the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal (for brevity "Tribunal") in ITA No. 2811/Del/2008
for the Assessment Year 1998-99.
2. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned senior standing counsel for the
Revenue submitted that the Tribunal had erred in law in deleting the
penalty of ` 5,98,899/- levied by the Assessing Officer under
Section 271(1)(c) of Act, 1961.
3. However, upon a perusal of the file we find that the said penalty
was deleted both by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and
the Tribunal on the ground that the issue involved in the quantum
proceeding was a debatable one and further that the respondent-
assessee had neither concealed the particulars of income nor furnished
inaccurate particulars of income. In fact, the Tribunal in its impugned
order has observed as under :-
"7. Agreeing with the reasoning given by the CIT(A)
while cancelling the impugned penalty amount we
would like to further add that it is a case involving a
legal issue on which there could possibly be two
opinions, first, the one followed by the AO and the
second given by the CIT(A) while reversing the order
of the AO and the third taken in the order of ITAT
upholding the order of the AO on the reasoning that
in view of the amendment in the provision of section
115JA with retrospective effect the set off of
unabsorbed depreciation while determining the book
profit u/s 115JA of the Act was held not allowance to
the assessee. From the facts it cannot be said that
the assessee either concealed the particulars of
income or furnished inaccurate particulars of
income by harbouring the belief that it was entitled
to claim the same.
8. For the reasons given hereinabove we are of
the considered opinion that the CIT(A) has rightly
cancelled the impugned penalty amount of Rs.
598899/- levied u/s 271(1)(c). Accordingly, the
order of the CIT(A) in this regard is upheld and the
ground of appeal taken by the revenue is rejected."
4. Since the approach of the Tribunal is fair, reasonable and in
consonance with law, the impugned order calls for no interference.
Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in limine but with no order
as to costs.
MANMOHAN, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
SEPTEMBER 17, 2010/rn
