Itxa/153/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 9, Mumbai v. M/S. Maharaja Builders Pvt.ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.153 OF 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax-9 -Versus-M/s. Maharaja Builders Pvt. Ltd. ..Appellant ..Respondent ........... Mr. Arvind Pinto for the Appellant. Mr. Benny Chatterji, Senior Counsel, a/w Ms. Manorama Mohanty i/b. M/s. S.K. Srivastava & Co. for the Respondent. ........... CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE :- 5[th] DECEMBER, 2014 P.C.: Though this Appeal was placed for directions, Mr. Pinto, learned counsel and Mr. Chatterji, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the Respondent -Assessee, by consent, request that the Appeal be taken up for admission. 2]We have perused the order passed by the Tribunal in Income Tax Appeal Nos.2498 and 2499/Mum/2011. The Tribunal was dealing with the Appeals by the Revenue relating to the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 raising the ground of deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In upholding the conclusion of the 1/2 wadhwa 2 Commissioner and deleting the penalty, the Tribunal concluded that the Assessee acted bonafide in raising the claim. The particulars and material one so also necessary for dealing with the claim were placed on record by the Assessee. The Assessing Officer has not accepted the claim on merits. That was not enough for imposing penalty and when the Assesee acted bonafide. This is the conclusion reached and when the ingredients of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not satisfied, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty. Such an order cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. The Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. (A. A. SAYED, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) 2/2