Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 2, Vadodara v. Synbiotics Limited

C/TAXAP/997/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 997 of 2018 =========================================================== PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, VADODARAVersusSYNBIOTICS LIMITED ================================================================ Appearance: MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAHandHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Date : 07/08/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1. Feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the order dated 29.11.2017 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate 29.11.2017 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad “C” Bench, Ahmedabad in ITA No.1705/Ahd./2017 for the Assessment Year : 2008-2009, the Revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal with the following proposed question/s of law :- “(a) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without appreciating the facts discussed in the orders of the CIT(A) and the AO justifying the imposition of penalty and without considering that the penalty was supported by Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c)? (b) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts, in deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act by mechanically following the decision in another case, and without appreciating the facts discussed in the orders of the CIT(A) and the AO, and whether this decision suffers from perversity? 2. We have heard learned Advocate Mr. Varun K. Patel appearing for the appellant – Department and learned Advocate Mr. B.S. Soparkar appearing for the respondent – assessee. appearing for the appellant – Department and learned Advocate Mr. B.S. Soparkar appearing for the respondent – assessee. 3. It is required to be noted and it is also in dispute that while passing the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has relied upon its own decision in respect of the sister concern of the respondent – assessee, with respect to the same land. It is reported that the decision of the Tribunal has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Tax Appeal No.233/2018 and allied matters. while passing the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has relied upon its own decision in respect of the sister concern of the respondent – assessee, with respect to the same land. It is reported that the decision of the Tribunal has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Tax Appeal No.233/2018 and allied matters. 4. Under the circumstances, the issues raised are concluded against the Department. No substantial questions of law arise in this Appeal. The Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/-concluded against the Department. No substantial questions of law arise in this Appeal. The Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/-(M.R. SHAH, J) Sd/-Sd/-(A.Y. KOGJE, J) CAROLINE