Itxa/1067/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-20 v. M/S. Systematic Exports

sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1067 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax-20, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Systematic Exports ..Respondent. Ms. S.V.Bharucha for the appellant. Mr. Sanjiv M. Shah for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATED : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2013 P.C. :- 1.in this appeal by the revenue for the assessment year 2003-04, the following question has been raised for our consideration:- “ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the CIT Appeals which deleted the penalty of Rs.51,43,549/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for dissllowance of deduction under section 80IB of the Act ? ” itxa1067-12 2.The basic dispute on merits is whether the goods manufactured by others as per specifications of the respondent-assessee and under the supervision and control of the respondent-assessee would be entitled to deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as goods manufactured by the respondent-assessee. 3.Since the Tribunal by the impugned order has followed the decision of this Court in the case of Penwalt India Ltd. V/s.CIT reported in 196 ITR 813 (Bom) wherein it has been held that the manufacturing activity done by somebody else under the supervision of the assessee is considered to be assessee's manufacturing activity, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Further, the Tribunal has also recorded a finding of fact that during the assessment, all the relevant materials and details comprising primary facts have been disclosed by the respondent-assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal held that there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the respondent-assessee. Further mere disallowance of a claim would not ipso facto lead to imposition of penalty as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of CIT V/s. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC). In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. 4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)