IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ITA 347/2015
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -9
..... Appellant
Through Mr. Rohit Madan, sr. standing
counsel

versus

VERDHMAN PROPERTIES LTD.
..... Respondent
Through None

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER
% 26.05.2015

1. revenue claims to be aggrieved by order of Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 29.09.2014 in ITA Nos.3536 &
5089/Del/2012. It urges that direction to cancel penalty assessed to
the tune of `76,70,966/- under Section 271(1) of Income Tax Act was
unjustified. assessee private company, is engaged in real estate
development business. For AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 assessment under
Section 143(3) of Act was framed and addition of `2,25,68,303/- was
made on account of application of percentage completion of method. The
AO initiated penalty proceedings in respect of addition made and
confirmed it. CIT (Appeals) was of opinion that in given
circumstances of case since appellant upon receipt of notice filed a
revised return that circumstance weighed predominantly AO to impose
penalty. CIT(A) consequently set aside penalty; revenues
grievance that this score was rejected by ITAT. We considered the
circumstance of case. It is quite evident from materials on record
that AO was considerably swayed by revised return and figures
disclosed therein. CIT(A) correctly understood law in light of
the decision of Supreme Court in CIT V. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 and directed revocation of penalty. ITAT affirmed the
decision. Being factual in nature and disclosing no apparent loss or
perversity, this Court is of opinion that no substantial question of law
arises. appeal is, therefore, bereft of merit and is consequently
dismissed.


S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J


R.K.GAUBA, J
MAY 26, 2015
vld
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -9 v. VERDHMAN PROPERTIES LTD