Itxa/833/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1 v. M/S. Forbes Gokak Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1891 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax-1..Appellant.V/s.M/s. Forbes Gokak Limited..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar, for the Appellant.Mr. A. K. Jasani, for the Respondent. P.C:- CORAM: J.P.DEVADHAR & M.S.SANKLECHA,JJ.DATE : 6[th] FEBRUARY, 2013. Office objection waived. 2In this Appeal by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 1998-99, the following question has been raised for our consideration. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in holding the view taken by the CIT(A) that the dis-allowance of the deduction u/s 80HHC on the basis of loss from export of manufacturing goods which was not adjusted against the profit from export of trading goods is debatable one and delete the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.13,05,660/-. The non-adjustment of loss from manufacturing of goods for the purpose of 80HHC deduction amounts to the act of filing inaccurate particulars of total income and thereby concealment of income in view of the explanation 1 of Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961?”. 3By the impugned order, the Tribunal has deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This was after recording a finding of fact that the Respondent-Assessee has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed any facts. 4The impugned order also records the fact that the dis-allowance was made by the Assessing Officer in reassessment proceedings, in view of a later judgment of the Apex Court. Thus it was a simple case of dis-allowance of deduction on account of the later judgment of the Apex Court and has nothing to do with either furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of facts. 5The Tribunal while deleting the penalty has followed the decision of the Apex court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. reported in 322 ITR 158. 6In these circumstances, we do not see any reason to entertain the proposed question of law. 7Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)