Itxa/1300/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -8 v. Sharp Tanks And Structulas Pvt. Ltd

sbw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1300 OF 2012WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1344 OF 2012WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1345 OF 2012WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1346 OF 2012WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1347 OF 2012WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1369 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax -8-Versus-Sharp Tanks & Structurals Pvt. Ltd. ..Appellant ..Respondent ...................... Mr. Arvind Pinto for the Appellant. CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATE :- 13[th] NOVEMBER, 2014 P.C.: These are matters where the Revenue is aggrieved by the Tribunal's direction to reverse and set aside the penalties imposed on the Assessee. 2]Mr. Pinto, learned counsel, appearing for the Revenue submits that Appeals raise substantial questions of law. The penalty imposed could not 903.itxa1300.12 have been set aside merely because the Assessee offered an explanation and which is accepted by the Tribunal. In the present case, the Assessing Officer held that the Assessee did not have offer an additional income and he offered it only after the survey was conducted. This is the case where he concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof and deliberately. The cause or explanation that there was a embezzlement of the Assessee's funds by one of its employees has rightly been disbelieved because no action was taken against the said employee by the Assessee. Merely because another view is possible, the Tribunal should never set aside the concurrent orders. 3]We are unable to agree with Mr. Pinto. Para 10 of the order passed by the Tribunal contains elaborate reasons. In this and the next paragraph, namely, para 11 the Tribunal analyzed and looked at the facts in their entirety. It looked at the conduct of the Assessee as a whole. The explanation was offered by him about the embezzlement of funds by its employee Mr. Satish Poojari was not a concocted one. It was a genuine case and where the employee admitted his guilt and later on reimbursed the Assessee by giving immovable property of commensurate value. It is, therefore, not any deliberate or intentional act but the entire sum on noticing this embezzlement was brought to tax. The Assessee claimed this sum as an expenditure and which could have been so claimed on the basis of the law laid down in several decisions including of this Court. Finding that the conduct of the Assessee cannot be faulted for having offered such an explanation and hence, the ingredients enabling imposition of penalty are not satisfied that the Tribunal reverse these concurrent orders. We do not find any perversity in such reasoning of the Tribunal nor can be held that the Tribunal omitted from consideration the relevant legal provision or misconstrued or misapplied it completely. The explanation was throughout offered and deserved to be accepted. In such circumstances, the Tribunal's order and direction does not raise any substantial question of law. Each of these Appeals are dismissed. No orders as to costs. (A. A. SAYED, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) wadhwa 3/3