Itxa/5236/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax 25 Mumbai v. Alf Engineering Co

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 2554 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax... Appellant. ALF Engineering Co.... Respondent. Ms.Suchitra Kamble for the appellant. P.C.: CORAM :V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED : 24[th] November 2009. Office objections are over-ruled. Office to register the appeal. Appeal is taken up for hearing at the request of learned counsel for the appellant. 2.The questions sought to be raised in this appeal revolve around imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal has considered this aspect in para-5 of its order in the following words: �5. .....Admittedly, this is the case where the penalty was levied for discharging of the onus as per the provisions of section 68 of the Act. In our considered opinion, the said failures are relevant for making of additions in reassessment proceedings. But when it comes to penalty proceedings, the requirement of any incriminating material or finding against the assessee is essential for confirming the penalty and the same is missing here. In view of the above facts, we are of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for such levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The expiry of Shri Bhargava of M/s Majestic Fabricators is also relevant information and it constitutes a reasonable cause. Further, there is no incriminating material or whisper of information to suggest directly that alleged amount of Rs.13.5 lakhs belong to the assessee. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty. Accordingly, ground 1 of the assessee is allowed.� 3.Having gone through the aforesaid reasoning, the Tribunal has recorded finding of fact and come to the conclusion that the reasonable cause was established. The finding is based on appreciation of evidence and material on record with which no fault can be found. The impugned order can hardly be said to be a perverse order. In this view of the matter, appeal is dismissed for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.