Tax Appeal v. Salgaocar (Huf) Versusasst. Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2012 D. V. SALGAOCAR (HUF) VersusASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR., ... Appellant ... Respondents Mr. A. F. Diniz, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Asha Dessai, Advocate for the respondents. P.C.:- -Coram:S. C. DHARMADHIKARI &U. V. BAKRE, JJ.-Date:6th February, 2012 Heard Mr. Diniz appearing for the appellant and Ms. Dessaiappearing for the respondents. Perused the concurrent orders of theCommissioner of Income Tax and the Income Tax AppellateTribunal. 2. In the facts and circumstances of this case, when it wasconcurrently found that the vessel was surveyed and the certificateissued by the Captain of Ports on 10th May, 2005, stated to be thefinal certificate and its temporary certificate, evidencing the datewhen the vessel was built as 8th April, 2005 then, bearing in mindthe period of agreement for hire, namely 28th March, 2005 to 27thMarch, 2006, the twin conditions contemplated by Section 32 andnoted by both, the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, are not satisfied in this case. The finding of fact,arrived at paras 14 and 15 are consistent with the material placed onrecord and cannot be termed as perverse. We are of the opinion thatno question of law, much less a substantial one, arises for determination and consideration in this case. The appeal is,therefore, devoid of any merit and is dismissed. 3. The apprehension is that the benefit could be claimed forthe subsequent years, but for the year in question, on account ofrejection of the request of the appellant, penalty proceedings may beinitiated. We have no doubt in our mind that the authorities, if at allsuch proceedings are initiated, would give full opportunity to theappellant to place forward its version and explanation and considerequally the case that the matter was carried by the assessee-appellantfrom the Commissioner of Income Tax upto this Court on thebonafide plea that the legal position is settled by the decision of theCalcutta High Court in the case of Multican Builders Ltd. v. CIT,reported in 278 ITR 142. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ssm. U. V. BAKRE, J.