Itxa/2093/2009 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-8, Mumbai v. Flat Products Equipments (I) Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2093 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. Flat Products Equipments (I) Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for appellant. Mr. Prakash Shah i/b. PDS Legal for respondent. CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED : 25TH JANUARY, 2010 P.C. :- 1.The only question which is raised in the appeal by the revenue is, whether the ITAT was justified in holding that a penalty under section 158BA of the Income Tax Act was not liable to be levied. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a return of income as a result of a search under section 132 declaring an income of Rs.2.06 crores. The Assessing Officer made certain additions and assessed undisclosed income of the block period at Rs.2.22 crores. The assessee accepted the assessment order and did not prefer an appeal. On the basis of the order passed by the Assessing Officer, where there was no appeal filed by the assessee against the block assessment, the Tribunal held that merely because there is a difference between the returned income and assessed income of the assessee and the assessee had not preferred any appeal against the additions made, this will not by itself be sufficient to impose penalty for concealment. The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) had also found that the explanation given by the assessee had not been rebutted by the revenue. The Tribunal held that the explanation tendered by the assessee is not lacking in force and that the deletion of the penalty was, therefore, justified. The Tribunal held that the basis of the Assessing Officer to impose a penalty for concealment of income under section 158BFA(2) is not sustainable and no material was brought on record by the Revenue to doubt the explanation given by the assessee as not being bonafide. The view taken by the Tribunal is a reasonable and possible view and in our considered opinion, no substantial question of law would arise. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)