Itxa/916/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - 8 v. M/S. Garware Chemicals Ltd

kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.916 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax-8.-Versus-M/s Garware Chemicals Ltd.. ..Appellant ..Respondent ........... Mr.Tejveer Singh, for the Appellant.Mr.P.C.Tripathi, for the Respondent. ........... CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND GIRISH S. KULKARNI, JJ. DATE :- 10[th] March, 2014 PC: 1Heard Mr.Tejveer Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/ Revenue. Perused the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and that of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2In allowing the Appeal of the Respondent/Assessee, the Tribunal has referred to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It also examined the matter from all factual angles. It found that this was not a case fit enough for imposition of penalty. There is no finding of the Assessing Officer, according to the Tribunal, that the details filed by the Assessee were incorrect or erroneous. 3Mr.Singh would contest this finding by urging that the Assessing Officer in paragraph 3 of his order has observed that the Assessee has concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars. 4We have perused this paragraph with the assistance of Mr.Singh. We find that the Assessing Officer has observed that the contentions of the Assessee are considered, but found not acceptable. From the contentions, what has been deduced is that the particulars of income filed by the Assessee were not correct or to put it in the language of the Act, the Assessee has filed inaccurate particulars of its income. The Assessing Officer has observed that the Assessee has not stated any reasonable cause for failure on its part to report its true and correct profit. The Assessing Officer has then perused the explanation given and found that same will not absolve the Assessee from penal proceedings. 5However, the Tribunal in paragraph 6 of the impugned order has held that this was not a simple case of increase of authorized capital because the Assessee has sought to issue to the IDBI Bank the optional convertible debentures in view of the restructuring scheme of the said Bank. The Assessee was not trying to seek any tax advantage because even after disallowance of this expenditure, huge loss was assessed. In such circumstances in the opinion of the Tribunal, this was not the case falling within the purview of the provisions enabling imposition of penalty. 6In any event this was not the matter which would enable the Assessing Officer to exercise his discretion and impose penalty on the grounds permissible and particularly under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. To our mind, such findings of fact and rendered in the light of legal provision, do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The Appeal is, therefore, devoid of any merit and is dismissed. No costs. (GIRISH S. KULKARNI, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)