This order dismisses the Revenue's appeal against the Tribunal's deletion of a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The court held that the Tribunal's reasoning regarding the debatability of the issue was reasonable and no question of law arose.
The appeal is dismissed along with the pending application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~56
versus
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
O R D E R
% 19.03.2018
The imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereafter “the 1961 Act”] by the Assessing Officer (AO) in relation to the assessee, resulting in the addition of `83,88,635/-, is a subject matter of present appeal by the Revenue. It is urged that the Tribunal was not justified in directing deletion of penalty as it ignored the mandate of Explanation 7 to Section 271(1)(c). The addition ultimately made by the Revenue authorities [rather the CIT(A)] was in the course of determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP) under Section 92C of the 1961 Act. The AO added further amounts upon examination and analysis of the transfer pricing report and the application of Rule 10B.
Having regard to the overall circumstances, the Tribunal’s reasoning that the question was debatable (more so since the original amounts added were reduced by the CIT(A) and further affirmed by the Tribunal) is reasonable. In the circumstances, no question of law arises.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed along with the pending application.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
A. K. CHAWLA, J
MARCH 19, 2018/ajk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing deletion of penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) by ignoring Explanation 7.
Whether a question of law arises from the Tribunal's reasoning that the question was debatable.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -4
The Assessee
S. Ravindra Bhat
A. K. Chawla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
