Commissioner Of Income Tax -Ltu v. M/S Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited

Yugandhara Patil 4-ITXA-19-2018.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 19 OF 2018 Commissioner Of Income Tax -ltu VersusM/s Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited ...Appellant ...Respondent ****** Mr. Suresh Kumar for Appellant. Mr. Niraj Sheth a/w Mr. Upendra Lokegaonkar i/b Mint andConfreres for Respondent. ****** CORAM: K.R.SHRIRAM & M.M.SATHAYE JJ. P.C. :- DATE : 14[th] JUNE 2023 1.Heard. The following three substantial questions of law areproposed:- SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW a.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the caseand in law, the Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty ofRs.8,05,562/- levied under Section 27(1)(c) of the Act on issueof leasehold premium levied by the Assessing Officer in respectof addition of Rs. 29,92.371/- which is wrongly claimed asdeduction under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? b. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase and in law, the Tribunal was right in deleting the penaltyof Rs.92,95,993/- levied under Section 27(1)(c) of the Act inrespect of exclusion of interest under Section 244A aggregatingto Rs.2,41,45,436/-? c. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting thepenalty of Rs.1,22,19,154/- levied under Section 27(1)(c) ofthe Act in respect of non-allowance of exclusion of capital 1 /2 Yugandhara Patil 4-ITXA-19-2018.doc profits in computing book profit under Section 115JA of theAct ? 2.The assessing officer had imposed penalty because of certain disallowance in the order of Assessing Office. That does not meanpenalty is automatically levieable. CIT (A) interfered and set asidepenalty levied by Assessing Officer. This has been upheld by ITAT.The ITAT has extensively dealt with each item under which penaltywas imposed and has given reason why penalty was not levieable.We have also considered the order of Assessing Officer and aresatisfied that ingredients required to impose penalty have not beensatisfied. There is no finding in the order of Assessing Officer thatexplanation offered was found to be false or not bonafide. Wewould add that even in order of Assessing Officer an observationthat explanation is false or not bonafide is not enough. It has to besubstantiated in detail with explanation as to why the AssessingOfficer has came to a conclusion that explanation offered was falseor not bonafide. 3.In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere. Nosubstantial question of law arises. Appeal dismissed. [M.M.SATHAYE,J.] [K.R.SHRIRAM, J.] 2 /2