Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

ITA Nos. 5931 and 5686/Mum/2010, (Assessment Year: 2003-04). Case: 1. ACIT, 2. Aditya Birla Centre Vs 1. Aditya Birla Centre, 2. ACIT. ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal)

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberITA Nos. 5931 and 5686/Mum/2010, (Assessment Year: 2003-04)
CounselFor Appellant: J.D. Mistry & Madhur Agarwal and For Respondents: Mr. G.N. Makwana
JudgesB. Ramakotaiah, Member (A) and S.T.M. Pavalan, Member (J)
IssueIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 143(3), 260A, 271(1)(c)
Judgement DateSeptember 04, 2013
CourtITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal)

Order:

S.T.M. Pavalan, Member (J), (ITAT Mumbai 'H' Bench)

  1. These cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue are directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-16, Mumbai dated 13.05.2010 partly confirming the penalty levied by the AO u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act on account of various disallowances/additions made in the assessment framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act in for the assessment year 2003-04. Both the appeals are disposed off by this common order. During the proceedings before us, the Ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee and Ld. DR have elaborately argued on the respective grounds of appeal on merits. However, it has also been brought to our notice that the appeal of the assessee against the order of the ITAT in the quantum proceedings confirming the addition made by the authorities on the basis of which the penalty has been levied has been admitted by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay vide order dated 22.07.2011 in Income Tax Appeal No. 4611 of 2010 under section 260A of the Income Tax Act as the issue involves substantial question of law. Where the High Court has accepted the appeal as the subject matter of addition involves substantial question of law u/s. 260A, it is needless to emphasis that the issue is debatable and accordingly, no penalty is imposable u/s. 271(1)(c) of Act. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Liquid Investment & Trading Co. [in ITA No. 240/2009] vide its judgment dated 5.10.2010 has held that an issue becomes...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT