Itxa/272/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -Ii, Pune v. M/S. Raviraj Kothari Punjabi Associates

sbw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.272 OF 2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax-IIPune. ..Appellant -Versus-M/s. Raviraj Kothari Punjabi Associates..Respondent ........... Mr. Vimal Gupta, Senior Advocate, i/b. Vipul A. Bajpayee for the Appellant.Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar for the Respondent. ........... CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARIAND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE :- 5[th] DECEMBER, 2014 P.C.: Though this Appeal was placed for “directions” Mr. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Revenue in support of this Appeal and Mr. Naniwadekar, learned counsel, appearing for the Assessee, on notice agree that the matter be heard for admission. The deletion of penalty by the Tribunal on 21[st] October, 2011 in Income Tax Appeal No.207/PN/2010 for assessment year 2004-05 is under challenge in this Appeal. 2]We have perused the order passed by the Tribunal and the questions raised by the Revenue. 3]The Special Bench of the Tribunal had upheld the claim of the Assessee for deduction under section 80IB(10)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In view of this, the Commissioner deleted the penalty. 4]The finding of the Commissioner while deleting the penalty is reproduced in para-3 of the Tribunal order. The Tribunal concluded that in substantive/quantum proceedings, the issue was debatable. There was no concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereto on the part of the Assessee while claiming deduction under section 80IB(10) during the assessment year under consideration. On this conclusion, the penalty was deleted. We do not find any perversity in this order and approach of the Tribunal. The order is not vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record either. The Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (A. A. SAYED, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) 2/2