Itxa/284/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-10 v. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.284 OF 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax 10-Versus-M/s. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. ..Appellant ..Respondent ........... Mr. Arvind Pinto for the Appellant. Mr. R. Murlidhar a/w Balasaheb Yewale i/b. M/s. Rajesh Shah & Co. for the Respondent. ........... CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE :- 5[th] DECEMBER, 2014 P.C.: We have heard Mr. Pinto, learned counsel, in this Appeal which raises a question on the justification of deletion of penalty by the Tribunal. 2]The penalty was levied by the Revenue on account of disallowance of interest under section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3]On the entire record being perused, parties being heard, the Tribunal concluded that the Assessee made a computation which was not strictly in terms of the legal provisions. As pointed out, computation needed to be altered and changed. That was made by the Assessee. This was not a case where the Assessee failed to furnish any particulars of 1/2 wadhwa income or furnished particulars which were inaccurate. Once this was the case found from perusal of the record, then, the deletion of penalty cannot be said to be vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. The decision cannot be termed as perverse because it was found that the Assessee entertained a bonafide belief that the interest received can be netted and the net interest is to be offered for tax and that stand of the Assessee would not lead to automatic imposition of penalty. The penalty has been rightly deleted and the Appeal, therefore, does not raise any substantial question of law. The Appeal is taken up for admission by consent of parties and accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. No costs. (A. A. SAYED, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) 2/2