Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 02, Delhi v. M/S Clix Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As M/S. Ge Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd)

$~51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 182/2019 & CM Nos.9281-82/2019 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 02, DELHI ..... Appellant Through :

Mr.

Zoheb Hossain, Sr.

Standing Counsel for Revenue.

versus M/S CLIX CAPITAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.

(EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S. GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD) ..... Respondent Through :

Mr. Sachit Jolly and Mr. Rohit Garg, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 26.02.2019 In this case, the provision for penalty was invoked under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act; the Revenue is in appeal contending that the ITAT's decision in holding that the penalty is unwarranted, is erroneous in law.

The assessee had claimed loss on sale of its loan portfolio to the extent of `29,03,32,647/-. In the assessment, the Assessing Officer disallowed the penalty; the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. However, the ITAT set it aside. The Revenue carried the matter further and did not meet with success because its appeal under Section

260A was dismissed. However, it appears that the appeal was restored after the Revenue was successful in the review pursued by it. We notice that the ITAT's reasoning to uphold the deletion of penalty in this case was that in the quantum proceedings, the disallowance had been set aside by it substantively. In the opinion of this court, this reasoning is sound. The penalty proceedings cannot have a life of their own sans the substantive proceedings which result in escapement of income. In this case, the ITAT substantively ruled against the Revenue. In any event, the facts would disclose that the issue is debatable and the penalty was not warranted. No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J FEBRUARY 26, 2019 aj