IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 . 
         ITA 1309/2010  
 . 
 . 
 CIT                                                             ..... 
 Appellant 
 Through Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Adv. 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 ALLIED FINANCE PVT LTD                         ..... Respondent 
 Through None 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
                        30.08.2010 
 CM No. 15543/2010 
 . 
 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 
 . 
 ITA No. 1309/2010 
 . 
 Heard Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, learned counsel for the Revenue- appellant, 
 on the question of admission.  The present appeal  is directed against the order 
 dated 15.1.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench `A?, 
 New Delhi)  (for short ?the Tribunal?) in ITA No.1400-1401-Del/2009 pertaining 
 to the assessment year 1998-99. 
 ITA 1309/2010                                                        page 1 of 3 
 The facts which are relevant to be stated are that for the assessment 
 years 1988-89 and 1989-90, the assessing officer held that the letting of the 
 property situated at Aurangzeb Lane by the assessee was not correct . The said 
 matter was carried in appeal and the quantum appeal was decided against him. 
 The assessing officer initiated proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the 
 Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that there has been  furnishing of inaccurate 
 particulars for the assessment year in question and imposed penalty.  Being 
 dissatisfied with the same, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) 
 who affirmed the order passed by the assessing officer. 
 Being grieved by the aforesaid order,  the appeal was carried to the 
 Tribunal and the Tribunal took note of the fact that the assessee in his 
 explanation to the show cause  issued in the penalty proceedings had stated that 
 a litigation was going on with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as regards the 
 annual rateable value and, therefore, he furnished the figure and hence, it 
 cannot be said that there was suppression of material facts or furnishing of 
 inaccurate particulars or he has concealed any income.  The learned   counsel 
 for   the  Revenue   has  taken  us  to  paragraph  9  of   the 
 ITA 1309/2010                                                        page 2 of 3 
 . 
 . 
 Tribunal?s order  to highlight that the Tribunal had taken note of the  fact 
 that for the relevant assessment years suitable notes have been given.  To 
 appreciate the said submission, we carefully scrutinized the findings of the 
 Tribunal which find place in paragraph 9  and on a proper scrutiny of the same, 
 we find that the  assessee had given a bona fide explanation and, therefore, the 
 penalty proceedings was set aside.  In our considered opinion, the Tribunal has 
 accepted the explanation preferred by the assessee and in such acceptance, we do 
 not see any perversity. 
 In the result, we do not perceive any merit in the appeal and, 
 accordingly, the same stands dismissed in limine. 
 . 
 . 
 CHIEF JUSTICE 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 MANMOHAN, J 
 . 
 . 
 AUGUST   30, 2010 
 aj 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 ITA 1309/2010                                                        page 3 of 3 
 . 
 30