Itxa/1676/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 8 v. M/S. Digiwave Infrastructure And Services Ltd

itxa-1676-12.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1676 OF 2012 …. Commissioner of Income Tax-8 ...Appellant v/s. M/s.Digiwave Infrastructure &Services Ltd., Mumbai ...Respondent … Mr.Arvind Pinto for the Appellant. Mr.Porus Kaka, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Atul Jasani for the Respondent. ... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 10 DECEMBER 2014 P.C. The Tribunal has deleted the penalty and on the reasons which have been assigned from paras 11.2 to 11.5 of the impugned order dated 18 May 2012 rendered in Income Tax Appeal no.8425/Mum/2011. 2. The Tribunal has found in all these paragraphs that the relevant particulars or rather the particulars material for the purposes of assessment were disclosed. This was not a case of non-furnishing of any particulars of income or furnishing any inaccurate particulars thereof. This was also not a case where an explanation was given by the Assessee could be said to be lacking itxa-1676-12.doc in bonafides. The Tribunal concluded that the fact of accrual of interest was disclosed by the Assessee. Had that not been disclosed and with particulars, the Assessing Officer would not have been in a position to hold the requisite inquiry. All the documents and material which were necessary for that purpose have been placed on record. If the Tribunal deleted the penalty for the reasons that have been recorded by it and on reaching a satisfaction that clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 together with Explanation-1 was not attracted to the given facts and circumstances, then the conclusion of the Tribunal cannot be termed as perverse. We are not concerned here with the merits of the claim or deduction before the Assessing Officer. The present Appeal is restricted only to deletion of the penalty and that is why the limited inquiry and the order of the Tribunal in relation thereto does not raise any substantial question of law. The order cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated by any error of law on the face of the record. 3.The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. (A.A. SAYED, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J.)