Itxa/1099/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -Ii Pune v. Span Sm Developers

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1907 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Pune..Appellant.V/s.M/s. Span SM Developers..Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Padma Divakar, for the Appellant.None for the Respondent. P.C:- CORAM: J.P.DEVADHAR & M.S.SANKLECHA,JJ.DATE : 21[st] FEBRUARY, 2013. In this appeal for the Assessment Year 2006-07 by the Revenue, the basic question which is raised for our consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the said Act) for having claimed deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the said Act. 2By the impugned order, the Tribunal has upheld the finding of the CIT(A), deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the said Act. The Tribunal records a finding of fact that the Assessee while claiming the benefit of deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the said Act had disclosed S.R.JOSHI all material facts. Thus on the above facts, the Tribunal concluded that there has been no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on the part of the Respondent-Assessee. Moreover, in the impugned order, the Tribunal notes that the Tribunal had in the matter of Saroj Sales Organization v/s. I.T.O. (2008) 3 DTR page 494 had taken a view on merits similar to that canvassed by the Respondent-Assessee with regard to its claim for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. Besides the Tribunal held that mere disallowance of a claim for deduction would not lead to imposition of penalty as held by the Apex Court in the matter of CIT v/s. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. reported in 322 ITR 158. 3In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain the decision of the Tribunal which is based on finding of fact. There is no concealment of furnishing any inaccurate particulars of income on the part of the Respondent-Assessee while claiming benefit under Section 80IB(10) of the said Act. 4Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)