Itxa/219/2018 Of Prashant R. Samdhani v. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax- Circle 17 (2)

Digitally signedby GAURIGAURIAMITAMITGAEKWADGAEKWADDate:2022.03.1010:42:03 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1357 OF 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax – 20 ….Appellant V/s. Prashant R. Samdani ….Respondent WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.219 OF 2018 Prashant R. Samdhani ….Appellant V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income TaxCircle 17(2) ….Respondent---- Mr. Dharan Gandhi for appellant in ITXA/219/2018 and respondent inITXA/1357/2017. Mr. Suresh Kumar for respondent in ITXA/219/2018. ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &N.J. JAMADAR, JJ. DATED : 7[th] MARCH 2022 N.J. JAMADAR, JJ. P.C.: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1357 OF 2017 1In the appeal, though three questions of law are proposed,appellant seems to be aggrieved by the order of the ITAT pronounced on23[rd] November 2016 upholding the finding of the CIT (A) reducing thequantum of penalty under Section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from100% to 10%. 2We have considered the impugned order. The ITAT has given afinding that the Assessing Officer, who imposed maximum penalty of 100%of tax in arrear, has not recorded his satisfaction as to why the maximum penalty should be levied. On the contrary, the ITAT has expressedsatisfaction that the CIT (A), while considering the grounds of appeal, wassatisfied that though the assessee had promised to complete his entireliability by 31[st] December 2012, completed it by 15[th] January 2013. The ITAThas also observed that by 31[st] December 2012 the assessee has paidRs.3,77,00,000/- and the balance of Rs.47,76,310/- was paid on15[th] January 2013. The CIT (A) has also considered the reason behindassessee’s explanation of financial constraints. 3In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interferewith the impugned order. In our view, the Tribunal has not committed anyperversity or applied incorrect principles to the given facts and when thefacts and circumstances are properly analysed and correct test is applied todecide the issue at hand, then, we do not think that question as pressedraises any substantial question of law. 4The appeal is devoid of merits and it is dismissed with no orderas to costs. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.219 OF 2018 5Heard Mr. Gandhi and also considered the appeal memo andthe impugned order. We do not find any error in the exercise of discretionby the learned CIT (A) as well as the ITAT confirming the finding of the CIT (A). 6 Therefore, appeal dismissed. (N.J. JAMADAR, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)