Itxa/3049/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- 8 Mumbai v. Time Packaging Lstd

sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3049 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-8, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Time Packaging Ltd. Now known as Time Technoplast Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant. Mr. Sameer G. Dalal for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATED : 14TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 P.C. :- 1.Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is the question raised in this appeal. 2.The assessment year involved herein is AY 2001-02. 3.The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of HDPE plastic drums / barrels. While claiming deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee had included the amount received by it on account of the moulds given on hire. The assessing officer was of the opinion that the amount received by the assessee on giving the moulds on hire was income assessable under the head 'income from other sources' and hence excludible from the computation of income eligible for Section 80IB deduction. Since the assessee had included the mould hire charges while claiming Section 80IB deduction, the assessing officer imposed penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4.On appeal filed by the assessee, the CIT(A) deleted the penalty and the same was upheld by the ITAT. Hence this appeal at the instance of the revenue. 5.The finding of fact recorded by the ITAT is that the assessee had neither concealed income chargeable to tax nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income and if the assessee bonafide believed that the mould hire charges received by the assessee is includible in the computation of income eligible for deduction under Section 80IB of the Act, then, on such bonafide claim being disallowed, penalty cannot be levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In our opinion, no fault can be found with the decision of the ITAT. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (K.K. TATED, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)