Paragraph 6 Of Its Order It Has Pointed Out Law Laid Downby Honourable Apex Court In Case Of Hindusthan Steelltd v. State Of Orissa 83 Itr 26. It Is Correctlyfollowed While Upholding The Order Of C.i.t (Appeals

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. INCOME TAX APPEAL NOS.53 AND 56 OF 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Pune, Thr. A.C.I.T. (Exemptions), Nagpur -vs-Vidarbha Cricket Association, Civil Lines, Nagpur. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Office notes, Office Memoranda ofCoram, appearances, Court's ordersCourt's or Judge's Orders.or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for appellants. CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ. DATE : December 05, 2016 1. In these appeals under Section 260A ofIncome Tax Act, 1961, department has questionedconcurrent orders of I.T.A.T. and of C.I.T (Appeals)whereby the action of levying penalty upon therespondent assessee for belated submission of returnsand consequential penalty under Section 272A(2)(e) hasbeen set aside. 2. Advocate Shri Parchure submits that for notfiling returns within time, the AO correctly issued showcause notice and has thereafter proceeded to levypenalty. The order passed by C.I.T (Appeals) on24/09/2015 allowing the appeal of assessee and the further orders of I.T.A.T. dated 31/12/2015 maintainingit are unsustainable. 3.It is not in dispute that connected Income TaxAppeal No.66 of 2016 was heard on 21/11/2016.Because of querries made during hearing, Advocate ShriParchure with Advocate Shri Mohta produced before ustoday the copy of order dated 29/12/2016 under Section12AA (1)(b)(i) of I. T. Act and an order of even datepassed by very same Authority condoning the delay. 4.Perusal of said order condoning delay showsa finding by Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)Pune that assessee Society was under bonafide beliefthat their predecessors in office had complied with allstatutory requirements. The assessee had soughtcondonation of delay from 01/04/1996 itself. The delaywas condoned and request for exemption was thenconsidered on merits. Ultimately the certificate underSection 12AA of Income Tax Act, 1961 came to be issuedin favour of assessee. 5.In impugned order dated 31/12/2015 whileupholding application of mind by C.I.T (Appeals),I.T.A.T has accepted the bonafides of the assessee. In paragraph 6 of its order it has pointed out law laid downby Honourable Apex Court in case of Hindusthan SteelLtd. vs. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26. It is correctlyfollowed while upholding the order of C.I.T (Appeals). 6. Finding on bonafides of assessee is basically afinding of fact. In the present matters bonafides areconcurrently accepted. We, therefore find that nosubstantial question of law arises in these appeals. 7. Appeal are rejected. JUDGE JUDGE