Itxa/5844/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -18 Mumbai v. M/S. Nanavati Developing Corporation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (LDG.) NO. 2393 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income-tax. ... Appellant. V/s. M/s.Nanavati Developing Corporation. ... Respondent. A.S.Shivsharan for the appellant. P.C. : CORAM :V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.thDATED : 7 November 2009. Office objections are overruled. Office to register the appeal. Appeal is taken up for hearing at the request of learned counsel for the appellant. 2.Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused appeal. 3.The issue sought to be raised in this appeal relates to imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal while deleting the penalty has recorded finding of fact in para-6 of the order reading as under: �6. We have given our careful consideration to the rival contentions. It is observed from the order of the CIT(A) that there is a clause in the agreement between the assessee and buyers namely clause 16, which reads as under:- �the builder shall maintain a separate account in respect of sums received from the purchaser as advance or deposit sums received on account of the share capital for the promotion of the co-operative society, legal charges and shall utilise the amounts only for the purpose for which they have been received.� The CIT(A) has further noted that the assessee does not have any right to retain any part of such deposit. It has further been pointed out that the assessee had received a sum of Rs.25,72,460/- up to the assessment year 1997-98 and an amount of Rs.30,260/- in the year under appeal. According to the CIT(A) all the details relating to the collection made by the assessee are on record and the assessee has not concealed any income justifying imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c).� 4.The findings of fact are based on appreciation of evidence on record. The view taken by the Tribunal is a reasonable and possible view with which no fault can be found. In this view of the matter, we see no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.