Of Income Tax, Panaji v. Goa Dourado Promotionspvt. Ltd

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2019 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI,.... Appellant Versus GOA DOURADO PROMOTIONSPVT. LTD..... Respondent *** Ms. Susan Linhares, Standing Counsel for the Appellant. Mr. S. R. Rivankar and Mr. Rama Rivankar, Advocates for theRespondent. Coram:- M.S. SONAK & C.V. BHADANG, JJ. th November, 2019 Date:- 26 P.C. Heard Ms. Linhares, the learned Standing Counsel for theappellant and Mr. Rivankar, the learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. In this case, Ms. Linhares, the learned Standing Counselfor the appellant urges that the following substantial questions of lawarise for consideration:- In this case, Ms. Linhares, the learned Standing Counsel 1. Whether the Ld. ITAT erred in deleting the penalty bynot considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case ofMak Data Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2013 (38) Taxman.com448 ? 2 2. Whether the Ld. ITAT erred in holding the penaltyproceeding fatal for mere failure of the A.O to tick therelevant box in the show cause notice ? 3. Mr. Rivankar, the learned Counsel for the respondentdefends the impugned order of the ITAT, on the basis of the reasonsreflected therein. Besides, he relies upon the order dated 11.11.2019in Tax Appeal No. 24/2019, where under the similar circumstances,this Court, dismissed the Appeal initiated by the Revenue, afterconsidering the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of1Mak Data (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. 4. According to us, the issues raised in this Appeal are fullycovered, not only by order dated 11.11.2019 made by us whiledismissing Tax Appeal No. 24/2019, but, further, by the decision ofthis Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-11 Vs. ShriSamson Perinchery2 and Principal Commissioner of Income TaxVs. New Era Sova Mine3 5. Accordingly, for the reasons set out in our order dated11.11.2019, we hold that the aforesaid substantial questions of law do 1(2013) 38 Taxman.com 448 (SC)2(2017) 392 ITR 432019 SCC Online Bom 10322(2017) 392 ITR 432019 SCC Online Bom 1032 3 not arise in this Appeal. Accordingly, this Appeal is liable to bedismissed and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. C. V. BHADANG, J. M. S. SONAK, J. EV