GE Jenbacher GMBH & Co. OHG, Gurgaon V. DCIT, Circle- 1(3)(1), International Taxation , New Delhi

ITA 757/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8412 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT KATOCH SR DR PAGE OF
• Keywords: Application of stay; Permanent establishment; Question of law; Difference of opinion; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 260A

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 22 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: C: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SA NO.: 380/DEL/2019 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.: 765/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02) GE PACKAGED POWER INC. 6 TH FLOOR, BUILDING NO. 7A, STANDARD CHARTERED BUILDING, DLF CYBER CITY, PHASE- III, GURGAON, HARYANA, PIN: 122002 VS. D CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), NEW DELHI PAN NO: AACCG3209J APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA NO.: 765/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02) GE PACKAGED POWER INC. 6 TH FLOOR, BUILDING NO. 7A, STANDARD CHARTERED BUILDING, DLF CYBER CITY, PHASE- III, GURGAON, HARYANA, PIN: 122002 VS. D CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), NEW DELHI PAN NO: AACCG3209J APPELLANT RESPONDENT SA NO.: 379/DEL/2019 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.: 693/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02) GENERAL ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS INC. 6 TH FLOOR, BUILDING NO. 7A, STANDARD CHARTERED BUILDING, DLF CYBER CITY, PHASE- III, GURGAON, VS. D CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), NEW DELHI PAGE 2 OF 22 HARYANA, PIN: 122002 PAN NO: AACCG4015E APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA NO.: 693/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02) GENERAL ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS INC. 6 TH FLOOR, BUILDING NO. 7A, STANDARD CHARTERED BUILDING, DLF CYBER CITY, PHASE- III, GURGAON, HARYANA, PIN: 122002 VS. D CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), NEW DELHI PAN NO: AACCG4015E APPELLANT RESPONDENT SA NO.: 398/DEL/2019 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.: 757/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO. OHG 6 TH FLOOR, BUILDING NO. 7A, STANDARD CHARTERED BUILDING, DLF CYBER CITY, PHASE- III, GURGAON, HARYANA, PIN: 122002 VS. D CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), NEW DELHI PAN NO: AADCG2178B APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA NO.: 757/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO. OHG 6 TH FLOOR, BUILDING NO. 7A, STANDARD CHARTERED BUILDING, DLF CYBER CITY, PHASE- III, GURGAON, HARYANA, PIN: 122002 VS. D CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), NEW DELHI PAN NO: AADCG2178B APPELLANT RESPONDENT SA NO.: 397/DEL/2019 PAGE 3 OF 22 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.: 756/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO. 6 TH FLOOR, BUILDING NO. 7A, STANDARD CHARTERED BUILDING, DLF CYBER CITY, PHASE- III, GURGAON, HARYANA, PIN: 122002 VS. D CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), NEW DELHI PAN NO: AADCG2178B APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA NO.: 756/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO. 6 TH FLOOR, BUILDING NO. 7A, STANDARD CHARTERED BUILDING, DLF CYBER CITY, PHASE- III, GURGAON, HARYANA, PIN: 122002 VS. D CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), NEW DELHI PAN NO: AADCG2178B APPELLANT RESPONDENT SA NO.: 384/DEL/2019 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.: 755/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO. OHG 6 TH FLOOR, BUILDING NO. 7A, STANDARD CHARTERED BUILDING, DLF CYBER CITY, PHASE- III, GURGAON, HARYANA, PIN: 122002 VS. A CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), NEW DELHI PAN NO: AADCG2178B APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA NO.: 755/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO. OHG 6 TH FLOOR, BUILDING NO. 7A, STANDARD CHARTERED VS. A CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), PAGE 4 OF 22 BUILDING, DLF CYBER CITY, PHASE- III, GURGAON, HARYANA, PIN: 122002 NEW DELHI PAN NO: AADCG2178B APPELLANT RESPONDENT SA NO.: 383/DEL/2019 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.: 754/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO. 6 TH FLOOR, BUILDING NO. 7A, STANDARD CHARTERED BUILDING, DLF CYBER CITY, PHASE- III, GURGAON, HARYANA, PIN: 122002 VS. AD IT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), NEW DELHI PAN NO: AADCG2178B APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA NO.: 754/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO. 6 TH FLOOR, BUILDING NO. 7A, STANDARD CHARTERED BUILDING, DLF CYBER CITY, PHASE- III, GURGAON, HARYANA, PIN: 122002 VS. AD IT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), NEW DELHI PAN NO: AADCG2178B APPELLANT RESPONDENT SA NO.: 382/DEL/2019 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.: 692/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO. 6 TH FLOOR, BUILDING NO. 7A, STANDARD CHARTERED BUILDING, DLF CYBER CITY, PHASE- III, GURGAON, HARYANA, PIN: 122002 VS. DC IT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), NEW DELHI PAN NO: AADCG2178B PAGE 5 OF 22 APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA NO.: 692/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO. 6 TH FLOOR, BUILDING NO. 7A, STANDARD CHARTERED BUILDING, DLF CYBER CITY, PHASE- III, GURGAON, HARYANA, PIN: 122002 VS. DC IT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), NEW DELHI PAN NO: AADCG2178B APPELLANT RESPONDENT SA NO.: 381/DEL/2019 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.: 758/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) GE PACKAGED POWER INC. 6 TH FLOOR, BUILDING NO. 7A, STANDARD CHARTERED BUILDING, DLF CYBER CITY, PHASE- III, GURGAON, HARYANA, PIN: 122002 VS. D CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), NEW DELHI PAN NO: AACCG3209J APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA NO.: 758/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) GE PACKAGED POWER INC. 6 TH FLOOR, BUILDING NO. 7A, STANDARD CHARTERED BUILDING, DLF CYBER CITY, PHASE- III, GURGAON, HARYANA, PIN: 122002 VS. D CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), NEW DELHI PAN NO: AACCG3209J APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SACHET JOLLY, ADV., SHRI AARUSH BHATIA, ADV. REVENUE BY : SHRI AMIT KATOCH, SR. DR PAGE 6 OF 22 ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDERS EACH DATED 22.11.2018 OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS)- 42, NEW DELHI [CIT (A) FOR SHORT] IN APPEAL NOS. 765/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02), 693/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02), 757/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMEN T YEAR: 2008-09), 756/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08), 755/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMEN T YEAR: 2006-07), 754/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06), 692/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMEN T YEAR: 2004-05), 758/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05). 1.1) GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 765/DEL/2019 ARE AS UN DER: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) [CIT(A)] ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) IN LEVYING PENALTY OF RS. 76,34,170/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING GROUND 2.1 IN THE FORM NO. 35 FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHEREIN THE APPELLA NT CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN LEVYING PENALTY OF INR 76,3 4,170/- @100% OF THE ALLEGED TAX ON ASSESSED INCOME, WITHOUT APPRECIATIN G THAT PENALTY IS TO BE LEVIED ONLY ON THE AMOUNT OF INCOME ON WHICH TAX IS SOUGHT TO BE EVADED I.E. INCOME FROM OFFSHORE SUPPLY AND OFFSHORE REPAI R WORK IN THE PRESENT CASE (INCOME OF INR 5,98,005*48% TAX RATE), IS INR 2,87,042 AND NOT ON THE RETURNED INCOME ALREADY OFFERED TO TAX IN RETUR N OF INCOME FILED BY THE APPELLANT. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO ERRED IN PASSING THE PENALTY ORDER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WHICH ARE WHOLLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND CLEARLY B ARRED BY LIMITATION INASMUCH AS THE SAME HAVE BEEN PASSED BEYOND THE PE RIOD OF LIMITATION PAGE 7 OF 22 PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 275(1)(A) OF THE ACT. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE INITIATION OF PENALTY BY WAY OF ISSUE OF PENALTY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING WHETHER THE PENALTY IS INITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLEGING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CON CEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE APPELLANT MAD E COMPLETE DISCLOSURE IN THE NOTES ACCOMPANYING THE RETURN OF INCOME. 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY, WITH OUT APPRECIATING THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS, PENALTY HAD BEEN DELETED BY THE PR EDECESSOR OF THE CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF GE CALEDONIAN LTD. AND GE AVIATION S ERVICE OPERATION LLP FOR THE AY 2011-12. 7. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY, WITH OUT APPRECIATING THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAVING ADMITTED THE APPEAL O F THE APPELLANT FOR THE SAME AY ON A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW QUA EX ISTENCE OF A PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT, THE ISSUE WAS PRIMA FACIE DEBATABLE, ON WHICH NO PENALTY COULD HAVE BEEN LEVIED, 8. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY, WITH OUT APPRECIATING THAT PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HAD BEEN DELETED IN THE CASE OF ROLLS ROYCE, WHICH FORMED THE BEDROCK AND SOLE BASI S OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO, ON WHICH PENALTY HAS NOW BEEN LEVIE D. 9. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDE R SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF PROFITS ATTRIBUTED TO THE A LLEGED PE OF THE APPELLANT, WHICH WAS BASED ON ESTIMATION, AND, THER EFORE, DO NOT TANTAMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING O F INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 693/DEL/2019 ARE AS UN DER: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) [CIT(A)] ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) IN LEVYING PENALTY OF RS. 34,29,630/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) PAGE 8 OF 22 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO ERRED IN PASSING THE PENALTY ORDER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WHICH ARE WHOLLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND CLEARLY B ARRED BY LIMITATION INASMUCH AS THE SAME HAVE BEEN PASSED BEYOND THE PE RIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 275(1)(A) OF THE ACT. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE INITIATION OF PENALTY BY WAY OF ISSUE OF PENALTY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING WHETHER THE PENALTY IS INITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLEGING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CON CEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE APPELLANT MAD E COMPLETE DISCLOSURE IN THE NOTES ACCOMPANYING THE RETURN OF INCOME. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY, WITH OUT APPRECIATING THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS, PENALTY HAD BEEN DELETED BY THE PR EDECESSOR OF THE CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF GE CALEDONIAN LTD. AND GE AVIATION S ERVICE OPERATION LLP FOR THE AY 2011-12. 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY, WITH OUT APPRECIATING THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAVING ADMITTED THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE SAME AY ON A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW QUA EX ISTENCE OF A PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT, THE ISSUE WAS PRIMA FACIE DEBATABLE, ON WHICH NO PENALTY COULD HAVE BEEN LEVIED, 7. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY, WITH OUT APPRECIATING THAT PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HAD BEEN DELETED IN THE CASE OF ROLLS ROYCE, WHICH FORMED THE BEDROCK AND SOLE BASI S OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO, ON WHICH PENALTY HAS NOW BEEN LEVIE D. 8. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDE R SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF PROFITS ATTRIBUTED TO THE A LLEGED PE OF THE APPELLANT, WHICH WAS BASED ON ESTIMATION, AND, THER EFORE, DO NOT TANTAMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING O F INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 757/DEL/2019 ARE AS UN DER: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE PAGE 9 OF 22 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) [CIT(A)] ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) IN LEVYING PENALTY OF RS. 1,04,01,600/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO ERRED IN PASSING THE PENALTY ORDER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WHICH ARE WHOLLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND CLEARLY B ARRED BY LIMITATION INASMUCH AS THE SAME HAVE BEEN PASSED BEYOND THE PE RIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 275(1)(A) OF THE ACT. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE INITIATION OF PENALTY BY WAY OF ISSUE OF PENALTY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING WHETHER THE PENALTY IS INITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLEGING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CON CEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE APPELLANT MAD E COMPLETE DISCLOSURE IN THE NOTES ACCOMPANYING THE RETURN OF INCOME. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY, WITH OUT APPRECIATING THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS, PENALTY HAD BEEN DELETED BY THE PR EDECESSOR OF THE CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF GE CALEDONIAN LTD. AND GE AVIATION S ERVICE OPERATION LLP FOR THE AY 2011-12. 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY, WITH OUT APPRECIATING THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAVING ADMITTED THE APPEAL O F THE APPELLANT FOR THE SAME AY ON A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW QUA EX ISTENCE OF A PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT, THE ISSUE WAS PRIMA FACIE DEBATABLE, ON WHICH NO PENALTY COULD HAVE BEEN LEVIED, 7. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY, WITH OUT APPRECIATING THAT PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HAD BEEN DELETED IN THE CASE OF ROLLS ROYCE, WHICH FORMED THE BEDROCK AND SOLE BASI S OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO, ON WHICH PENALTY HAS NOW BEEN LEVIE D. 8. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDE R SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF PROFITS ATTRIBUTED TO THE A LLEGED PE OF THE APPELLANT, WHICH WAS BASED ON ESTIMATION, AND, THER EFORE, DO NOT TANTAMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING O F INACCURATE PAGE 10 OF 22 PARTICULARS OF INCOME. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 756/DEL/2019 ARE AS UN DER: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) [CIT(A)] ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) IN LEVYING PENALTY OF RS. 43,44,788/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO ERRED IN PASSING THE PENALTY ORDER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WHICH ARE WHOLLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND CLEARLY B ARRED BY LIMITATION INASMUCH AS THE SAME HAVE BEEN PASSED BEYOND THE PE RIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 275(1)(A) OF THE ACT. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE INITIATION OF PENALTY BY WAY OF ISSUE OF PENALTY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING WHETHER THE PENALTY IS INITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE C1T(A) ERRED IN ALLEGING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CON CEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE APPELLANT MAD E COMPLETE DISCLOSURE IN THE NOTES ACCOMPANYING THE RETURN OF INCOME. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY, WITH OUT APPRECIATING THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS, PENALTY HAD BEEN DELETED BY THE PR EDECESSOR OF THE CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF GE CALEDONIAN LTD. AND GE AVIATION S ERVICE OPERATION LLP FOR THE AY 2011-12. 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY, WITH OUT APPRECIATING THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAVING ADMITTED THE APPEAL O F THE APPELLANT FOR THE SAME AY ON A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW QUA EX ISTENCE OF A PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT, THE ISSUE WAS PRIMA FACIE DEBATABLE, ON WHICH NO PENALTY COULD HAVE BEEN LEVIED. 7. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY, WITH OUT APPRECIATING THAT PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HAD BEEN DELETED IN THE CASE OF ROLLS ROYCE, WHICH FORMED THE BEDROCK AND SOLE BASI S OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO, ON WHICH PENALTY HAS NOW BEEN LEVIE D. 8. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE PAGE 11 OF 22 CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDE R SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF PROFITS ATTRIBUTED TO THE A LLEGED PE OF THE APPELLANT, WHICH WAS BASED ON ESTIMATION, AND, THER EFORE, DO NOT TANTAMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING O F INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 755/DEL/2019 ARE AS UN DER: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) [CIT(A)] ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) IN LEVYING PENALTY OF RS. 32,86,080/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO ERRED IN PASSING THE PENALTY ORDER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WHICH ARE WHOLLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND CLEARLY B ARRED BY LIMITATION INASMUCH AS THE SAME HAVE BEEN PASSED BEYOND THE PE RIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 275(1)(A) OF THE ACT. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE INITIATION OF PENALTY BY WAY OF ISSUE OF PENALTY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING WHETHER THE PENALTY IS INITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLEGING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CON CEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE APPELLANT MAD E COMPLETE DISCLOSURE IN THE NOTES ACCOMPANYING THE RETURN OF INCOME. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY, WITH OUT APPRECIATING THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS, PENALTY HAD BEEN DELETED BY THE PR EDECESSOR OF THE' CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF GE CALEDONIAN LTD. AND GE AVIATION S ERVICE OPERATION LLP FOR THE AY 2011-12. 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY, WITH OUT APPRECIATING THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAVING ADMITTED THE APPEAL O F THE APPELLANT FOR THE SAME AY ON A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW QUA EX ISTENCE OF A PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT, THE ISSUE WAS PRIMA FACIE DEBATABLE, ON WHICH NO PENALTY COULD HAVE BEEN LEVIED, 7. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY, WITH OUT APPRECIATING THAT PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HAD BEEN DELETED IN THE CASE OF PAGE 12 OF 22 ROLLS ROYCE, WHICH FORMED THE BEDROCK AND SOLE BASI S OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO, ON WHICH PENALTY HAS NOW BEEN LEVIE D. 8. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDE R SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF PROFITS ATTRIBUTED TO THE A LLEGED PE OF THE APPELLANT, WHICH WAS BASED ON ESTIMATION, AND, THER EFORE, DO NOT TANTAMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING O F INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 754/DEL/2019 ARE AS UN DER: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) [CIT(A)] ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) IN LEVYING PENALTY OF RS. 31,34,100/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO ERRED IN PASSING THE PENALTY ORDER UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT WHICH ARE WHOLLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND CLEARLY B ARRED BY LIMITATION INASMUCH AS THE SAME HAVE BEEN PASSED BEYOND THE PE RIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 275(1)(A) OF THE ACT. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE INITIATION OF PENALTY BY WAY OF ISSUE OF PENALTY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING WHETHER THE PENALTY IS INITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLEGING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CON CEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE APPELLANT MAD E COMPLETE DISCLOSURE IN THE NOTES ACCOMPANYING THE RETURN OF INCOME. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY, WITH OUT APPRECIATING THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS, PENALTY HAD BEEN DELETED BY THE PR EDECESSOR OF THE CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF GE CALEDONIAN LTD. AND GE AVIATION S ERVICE OPERATION LLP FOR THE AY 2011-12. 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY, WITH OUT APPRECIATING THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAVING ADMITTED THE APPEAL O F THE APPELLANT FOR THE SAME AY ON A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW QUA EX ISTENCE OF A PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT, THE ISSUE WAS PRIMA FACIE DEBATABLE, ON WHICH NO PENALTY COULD HAVE BEEN LEVIED. PAGE 13 OF 22 7. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY, WITH OUT APPRECIATING THAT PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HAD BEEN DELETED IN THE CASE OF ROLLS ROYCE, WHICH FORMED THE BEDROCK AND SOLE BASI S OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO, ON WHICH PENALTY HAS NOW BEEN LEVIE D. 8. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDE R SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF PROFITS ATTRIBUTED TO THE A LLEGED PE OF THE APPELLANT, WHICH WAS BASED ON ESTIMATION, AND, THER EFORE, DO NOT TANTAMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING O F INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 692/DEL/2019 ARE AS UN DER: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) [CIT(A)] ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) IN LEVYING PENALTY OF RS. 28,93,660/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO ERRED IN PASSING THE PENALTY ORDER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WHICH ARE WHOLLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND CLEARLY B ARRED BY LIMITATION INASMUCH AS THE SAME HAVE BEEN PASSED BEYOND THE PE RIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 275(1)(A) OF THE ACT. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING GROUND 2.1 IN THE FORM NO. 35 FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHEREIN THE APPELLA NT HAD CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN LEVYING PENALTY @300% (OF I NR 28,93,600) OF THE AMOUNT OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED IN COMPUTATION OF TAX, WHILE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ITSELF, THE LD. AO STATED TO LEVY PE NALTY @ 100% (OF INR 9,64,660) OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE INITIATION OF PENALTY BY WAY OF ISSUE OF PENALTY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING WHETHER THE PENALTY IS INITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLEGING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CON CEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE APPELLANT MAD E COMPLETE DISCLOSURE IN THE NOTES ACCOMPANYING THE RETURN OF INCOME. 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE PAGE 14 OF 22 CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY, WITH OUT APPRECIATING THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS, PENALTY HAD BEEN DELETED BY THE PR EDECESSOR OF THE CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF GE CALEDONIAN LTD. AND GE AVIATION S ERVICE OPERATION LLP FOR THE AY 2011-12. 7. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY, WITH OUT APPRECIATING THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAVING ADMITTED THE APPEAL O F THE APPELLANT FOR THE SAME AY ON A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW QUA EX ISTENCE OF A PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT, THE ISSUE WAS PRIMA FACIE DEBATABLE, ON WHICH NO PENALTY COULD HAVE BEEN LEVIED. 8. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY, WITH OUT APPRECIATING THAT PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HAD BEEN DELETED IN THE CASE OF ROLLS ROYCE, WHICH FORMED THE BEDROCK AND SOLE BASI S OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO, ON WHICH PENALTY HAS NOW BEEN LEVI ED. 9. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDE R SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF PROFITS ATTRIBUTED TO THE A LLEGED PE OF THE APPELLANT, WHICH WAS BASED ON ESTIMATION, AND, THER EFORE, DO NOT TANTAMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING O F INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 758/DEL/2019 ARE AS UN DER: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) [CIT(A)] ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) IN LEVYING PENALTY OF RS. 22,10,340/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO ERRED IN PASSING THE PENALTY ORDER UNDER SEC TION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WHICH ARE WHOLLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND CLEAR LY BARRED BY LIMITATION INASMUCH AS THE SAME HAVE BEEN PASSED BEYOND THE PE RIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 275(1)(A) OF THE ACT. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE INITIATION OF PENALTY BY WAY OF ISSUE OF PENALTY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING WHETHER THE PENALTY IS INITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLEGING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CON CEALED PARTICULARS OF PAGE 15 OF 22 INCOME, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE APPELLANT MAD E COMPLETE DISCLOSURE IN THE NOTES ACCOMPANYING THE RETURN OF INCOME. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY, WITH OUT APPRECIATING THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS, PENALTY HAD BEEN DELETED BY THE PR EDECESSOR OF THE CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF GE CALEDONIAN LTD. AND GE AVIATION S ERVICE OPERATION LLP FOR THE AY 2011-12. 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY, WITH OUT APPRECIATING THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAVING ADMITTED THE APPEAL O F THE APPELLANT FOR THE SAME AY ON A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW QUA EX ISTENCE OF A PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT, THE ISSUE WAS PRIMA FACIE DEBATABLE, ON WHICH NO PENALTY COULD HAVE BEEN LEVIED, 7. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY, WITH OUT APPRECIATING THAT PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HAD BEEN DELETED IN THE CASE OF ROLLS ROYCE, WHICH FORMED THE BEDROCK AND SOLE BASI S OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO, ON WHICH PENALTY HAS NOW BEEN LEVIE D. 8. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDE R SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF PROFITS ATTRIBUTED TO THE A LLEGED PE OF THE APPELLANT, WHICH WAS BASED ON ESTIMATION, AND, THER EFORE, DO NOT TANTAMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING O F INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 2) FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, ALL THESE EIGHT APPEA LS AND EIGHT STAY APPLICATIONS ARE DISPOSED OFF THROUGH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. A LL THE APPEALS ARE AGAINST LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION (U/S FOR SHORT) 271(1)(C) O F INCOME TAX ACT (IT ACT FOR SHORT). IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, AND ALSO IN HIS ORAL SUBM ISSIONS AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF IT ACT, WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THESE APPEALS, WERE LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO FOR SHORT) ARE IN RESPECT OF THOSE ADDITIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (I TAT FOR SHORT). HOWEVER, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN DISPUTED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES IN APPEALS PAGE 16 OF 22 U/S 260A OF IT ACT. HE FURTHER INFORMED THAT ALL TH ESE APPEALS FILED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES IN HONBLE HIGH COURT, U/S 260A OF IT ACT ARE YET TO BE DECIDED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. HOWEVER, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS FRAMED SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW IN RESPECT OF THE ADDI TIONS THAT WERE CONFIRMED BY ITAT. HE CONTENDED THAT THE QUANTUM ADDITIONS, THOUGH CONFIR MED BY ITAT, ARE ON DEBATABLE AND DISPUTABLE ISSUES ON WHICH DIFFERENCE OF OPINIO N CAN LEGITIMATELY EXIST. THEREFORE, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE QUANTUM ADDITIONS BEING DEBAT ABLE AND DISPUTABLE, PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF IT ACT WAS UNJUSTIFIED AND SHOULD BE D ELETED. IN THIS REGARD HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COU RT, WHICH IS JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LIQUID INVESTMENT AND TRADING COMPANY VIDE ORDER DATED 05.10.2010 IN ITA NO. 240/2019 IN WHICH THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER: BOTH THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE ITAT HAVE SET ASIDE THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961 ON THE GROUND THAT THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 14 A OF THE ACT WAS PRESCRIBED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL IN THIS COURT UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE ACT WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN ADMITTED AND SU BSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW FRAMED. THIS ITSELF SHOWS THAT THE ISSUE IS DEBATAB LE. FOR THESE REASONS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT NO QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THE P RESENT CASE. THIS APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 2.1) LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE FURTHER DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF ITAT, DELHI BENCHES, DELHI IN THE CASE OF GE ENERGY PARTS INC. AND OTHERS VS. DCIT IN WHICH THE AFORESAID ORDER OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LIQUID INVESTMENT AND TRADING COMPANY (SUPRA) WAS CONSIDERED AND ON IDENTICAL FACTS, THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF IT ACT WAS DELETED. THUS, HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT APPEALS THE ISSUE REGARDING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF IT ACT IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY AFORESAID ORDERS OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND ITAT, DELHI BENCHES IN PAGE 17 OF 22 THE CASES OF LIQUID INVESTMENT AND TRADING COMPANY (SUPRA) AND GE ENERGY PARTS INC. RESPECTIVELY. HE FURTHER ASSAILED THE PENALTY U/S 2 71(1)(C) OF IT ACT BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. IN SUPPORT OF THIS, HE FILED INFORMATION COLLECTED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, REGARDING DATE OF S ERVICE OF ORDER OF ITAT IN QUANTUM APPEALS; ON INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. MOREOVER, THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF IT ACT CONTENDING THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF IT ACT DESERVES TO BE DELET ED ALSO FOR THE FACT THAT IN THE NOTICES U/S 271(1)(C) OF IT ACT THE AO DID NOT MAKE A SPECI FIC CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR THERE WAS FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS ON INCOME. TO SUMMARIZE, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF IT ACT DESERVES TO BE DELETED ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS, ANY ONE OF WHICH IS SUFFICIENT F OR DELETION OF THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF IT ACT: A) THE QUANTUM ADDITIONS ARE ON DEBATABLE ISSUES ON WHICH DIFFERENCE OF OPINION CAN LEGITIMATELY EXIST AND ON WHICH SUBSTANTIAL QUE STION OF LAW HAS ALREADY BEEN FRAMED BY HONBLE HIGH COURT. B) PENALTIES LEVIED BY AO ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION. C) THE AO DID NOT MAKE SPECIFIC CHARGE IN THE PENAL TY NOTICE WHETHER THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS ON INCOME OR THERE WAS F URNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. PAGE 18 OF 22 2.2) IN REPLY, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR FOR SHORT) DID NOT DISPUTE THE CONTENTIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE THAT QUANTU M ADDITIONS WERE ON DISPUTABLE AND DEBATABLE ISSUES ON WHICH DIFFERENT VIEWS COULD LEG ITIMATELY EXIST. HE ALSO DID NOT DISPUTE THE FACT THAT SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW HAVE BEEN FRAMED BY HONBLE HIGH COURT IN APPEALS U/S 260A OF IT ACT IN RESPECT OF Q UANTUM ADDITIONS CONFIRMED BY ITAT REGARDING ALL THE ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF WHICH PEN ALTIES (DISPUTED IN THE PRESENT APPEALS BEFORE US) HAVE BEEN LEVIED BY AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF IT ACT. HOWEVER, HE RELIED ON ORDER OF HONBLE MUMBAI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS. M/S SHREE GOPAL HOUSING AND PLANTATION CORPORATION IN 2018-TIOL-2413-HON'BLE HIGH COURT-MUM-IT AND CO NTENDED THAT IT CANNOT BE A UNIVERSAL RULE THAT ONCE THE AP PEAL FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN ADMITTED IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, THEN, IPSO FACTO THE ISSUE IS DEBATABLE ISSUE WARRANTING DELETION OF PENALTY BY THE TRIBUNA L. 3) WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES ATTENTIVELY. WE HAVE PERU SED MATERIALS ON RECORD CAREFULLY. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE JUDICIAL PRECEDEN TS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE TWO SIDES. WE ARE AWARE OF AN EARLIER DECISION OF COORD INATE BENCH OF ITAT, DELHI IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. MORADABAD TOLL ROAD CO. LTD. IN [2016] 68 TAXMANN.COM 411 (DELHI TRIB.) / [2015] 42 ITR (T) 280 (DELHI TRIB.) IN WHICH ALSO THE AFORESAID CASE OF LIQUID INVESTMENT AND TRADING COMPANY (SUPRA) WAS CONSIDERED AND RELYING ON THE SAME IT WAS HELD THAT NO PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF IT ACT CO ULD BE IMPOSED ON DEBATABLE ISSUE. TO QUOTE FROM THIS ORDER IT WAS HELD BY ITAT, DELHI IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. MORADABAD TOLL ROAD CO. LTD. (SUPRA): PAGE 19 OF 22 6. WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL U/S 260A OF IT ACT WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN ADMITTED AND SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW FRAMED, THIS DIFFERENCE SHOWS THAT THE ISSUE IS DEBATABLE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW NO PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF IT ACT COULD BE IMPOSED ON A DEBATABLE ISSUE. 4) THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD. DR ON PCIT VS. M/S SHREE GOPAL HOUSING AND PLANTATION CORPORATION (SUPRA) DOES NOT HELP THE CASE OF REVENUE BECAUSE EVEN IN THAT CASE ALSO, THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS HELD: 5. IN FACT, THE ADMISSION OF AN APPEAL IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, IF ARISING ON A PURE INTERPRETATION OF LAW OR ON A CLAIM FOR DEDUCT ION IN RESPECT OF WHICH FULL DISCLOSURE HAS BEEN MADE, MAY, FIVE RISE TO A POSSI BLE VIEW, THAT ADMISSION OF APPEAL IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS WOULD SUGGEST NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED AS IT IS A DEBATABLE ISSUE. 4.1) IT WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF A SITUATION IN WHICH TRIBU NALS ORDER IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS WAS PERVERSE, THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COU RT HELD: IT CANNOT BE A UNIVERSAL RULE THAT ONCE AN APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN ADMITTED IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, THEN, IPSO FACTO THE ISSUE IS A DEBATABLE ISSUE WARRANTING DELETION OF PENALTY BY T HE TRIBUNAL. 4.1.1) IN THE APPEALS BEFORE US, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF RE VENUE THAT THE ORDERS OF TRIBUNAL IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS ARE PERVERSE. THUS, THE ORDER OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT WAS ON CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES. IN FACT, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPEALS BEFORE US; THE RATIO O F HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN PCIT VS. M/S SHREE GOPAL HOUSING AND PLANTATION CORPORAT ION (SUPRA), AS NARRATED IN FOREGOING PARAGRAPH (4) OF THIS ORDER, IS AGAINST R EVENUE AND IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, IN ANOTHER CASE OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH CO URT REPORTED AT CIT VS. NAYAN BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS [2015] 56 TAXMANN.COM 335 (BO MBAY)/[2015] 231 TAXMANN 665 (BOMBAY)/[2014] 368 ITR 722 (BOMBAY) IT WAS HELD BY HONBLE HIGH COURT: PAGE 20 OF 22 AS A PROOF THAT THE PENALTY WAS DEBATABLE AND ARGU ABLE ISSUE, THE TRIBUNAL REFERRED TO THE ORDER ON THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN Q UANTUM PROCEEDINGS AND THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW WHICH HAVE BEEN FRAMED THEREIN. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THAT ORDER DATED SEPTEMBER 27, 2010, ADMITT ING INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2368 OF 2009. IN OUR VIEW, THERE WAS NO CASE MADE O UT FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY AND THE SAME WAS RIGHTLY SET ASIDE. 4.2) FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW ON THE QUANTUM ADDITIONS CONFIRMED BY ITAT HAVE ALREAD Y BEEN FRAMED BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT REGARDING ALL THE ADDITIONS IN RESPECT O F WHICH PENALTIES (DISPUTED IN THE PRESENT APPEALS BEFORE US) HAVE BEEN LEVIED BY THE AO, U/S 271(1)(C) OF IT ACT. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT QUANTUM ADDITIONS WERE ON DISPUTABLE AND DEBATABLE ISSUES ON WHICH DIFFERENT VIEWS COULD LEGITIMATELY EXIST. IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID PRECEDENTS, V IDE ORDER OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. LIQUID INVESTMENT AND TRADING COMPANY (SUPRA), DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. NAYAN BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS (SUPRA), DECISION OF ITAT, DELHI IN ACIT VS. MORADABAD TOLL ROAD CO. LTD. (SUPRA); AND AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF PCIT VS. M/S SHREE GOPAL HOUSING AND PLANTATION CORPORATION (SUPRA); IN OUR VIEW THE ISSUE REGARDING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF IT ACT DISPUTED IN THE APPEALS BEFORE US IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AFORESAID ORDERS; AND , THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THE PENALTIES LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) AND DISPUTED IN THE PRESENT APPEALS BEFORE US, ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE PENALTIES LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF IT ACT AND DISPUTED IN THE PRESENT APPEALS BEFORE US ARE HEREBY CANCELLED. 5) SINCE, WE HAVE ALREADY DELETED THE PENALTIES LEVIE D U/S 271(1)(C) OF IT ACT, THE OTHER CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND AS MEN TIONED IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH PAGE 21 OF 22 (2.1) (B) THAT THE PENALTIES WERE BARRED BY LIMITAT ION, IS ACADEMIC IN NATURE AND NEED NOT BE ADJUDICATED. FURTHER, THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AS MENTIONED IN FOREGOING PARAGRAPH (2.1) (C) OF THIS ORDER THAT IN THE PENALTY NOTICES THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC CHARGE AS TO WHETHER THERE WA S CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME; IS ALSO ACADEMIC IN NATURE AND NEED NOT BE ADJUDICATED. THEREFORE, THESE ISSUES AN D CONTENTIONS RAISED BEFORE US IN THESE APPEALS ARE NOT BEING ADJUDICATED, BEING PURE LY ACADEMIC IN NATURE. 5.1) SINCE, THE PENALTIES HAVE BEEN DELETED BY US, THE STAY APPLICATIONS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. THEREFORE, ALL THE EIGHT STAY APPLICAT IONS ARE HEREBY DISMISSED BEING INFRUCTUOUS. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE EIGHT APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND ALL THE STAY APPLICATIONS ARE DISMISSED BEING INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.04.2019. SD/- SD/- (BEENA A. PILLAI) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 12.04.2019 BIDHAN PAGE 22 OF 22 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE OF DICTATION 11.04.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER