JUDGMENT Deepak Verma, J.— Heard Sri Aravind and Aravind Chauhan, for Sri M.V. Seshachala, learned Counsel for the appellants, on the question of admission. 2. This appeal is at the instance of the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), against the order dated September 19, 2007, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench "B", in the appellants' I. T. A. No. 908/Bang/2006 for the assessment year 1999-2000. 3. The appeal preferred by the Revenue before the Tribunal has been dismissed primarily on the ground that the additions made in respect of capital gains were deleted, vide order dated September 4, 2006. Therefore, there was no justification in imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. In the light of this development, the Tribunal was of the opinion that there was no case made out to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that against the main order passed by the Tribunal, I. T. A. No. 1152 of 2006 is pending before this Court. 6. However, we are of the opinion that the substantial question of law as projected in this appeal, which reads thus: (i) Whether the appellate authorities were correct in setting aside the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act ? 7.Is not required to be answered by us presently. If ultimately the appeal preferred by the Revenue, pending in I. T. A. No. 1152 of 2006 is allowed, then and then only the question of levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, would arise. Thus, we deem it fit and proper to grant liberty to the appellants in case of its success in I. T. A. No. 1152 of 2006, the aforesaid provision could be invoked and with this liberty, the appeal is disposed of. But at present as the fact situation is available, we are of the opinion that this question does not require to be answered by us. 8. With the aforesaid directions, this appeal stands finally disposed of.