Commissioner Of Income Tax - Ltu v. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYO.O.C.J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1771 OF 2017 Commissioner of Income Tax - LTU..Appellant Versus M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd..Respondent ................... Mr. Tejveer Singh for the Appellant Mr. Tejveer Singh for the Appellant Mr. J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate a/w P.C. Tripathi i/by Raj Darak forthe Respondent Mr. J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate a/w P.C. Tripathi i/by Raj Darak forthe Respondent ................... CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 4, 2020. P.C.: 1.Heard Mr. Singh, learned standing counsel, revenue forthe appellant and Mr. Mistri, learned senior counsel for therespondent - assessee. 2.This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) is preferred by the revenueagainst the order dated 16.8.2016 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Mumbai "H" Bench, Mumbai ("Tribunal"for short) in Income Tax Appeal No. 6485/Mum/2014 for theassessment year 2006-07. 3.The appeal has been preferred projecting the followingquestion as substantial question of law:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and inlaw, the Tribunal is right in deleting penalty of Rs. 1,14,42,717.00levied u/S. 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of bogus professional feespaid to Shri. S.K. Gupta?" 4.From the above, it is evident that the issue involved inthe present appeal is deletion by the Tribunal of the penaltyimposed on the respondent - assessee by the AssessingOfÏcer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5.At the outset, Mr. Singh fairly submits that in the quantum appeal being Income Tax Appeal No. 1056 of 2016,this Court by order dated 30.1.2019 had dismissed theappeal filed by the revenue upholding the order passed bythe Tribunal. 6.Be it stated that Tribunal had deleted the additionmade by the Assessing OfÏcer. It may also be stated thatpenalty was imposed following addition made by theAssessing OfÏcer. Imposition of penalty by the AssessingOfÏcer was interfered in appeal against which the present appeal arises. 7.In view of the fact that quantum appeal by the revenue has been dismissed by this Court, the very foundation forsustaining the present appeal no longer survives. 8.Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. However,there shall be no order as to cost. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] [ UJJAL BHUYAN, J. ] Digitallysigned byRavindraRavindra M.AmberkarM.Date:Amberkar2020.02.0610:31:19+0530