The Commissioner Of Income Tax-19 v. M/S.wellworth Laboratories

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX NO.2433 OF 2013 … The Commissioner of Income Tax-19v/sM/s.Wellworth Laboratories ...Appellant ...Respondent … . Mrs.S.V.Bharucha for the Appellant.Mrs.Vasanti B. Patel for the Respondent. ... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 12 DECEMBER 2014 P.C. Though the Appeal is listed under the group of similar matters for “Direction”, both sides agreed that the same can be disposed of, it is taken up as listed for “Admission”. 2. The Tribunal's order for the Assessment Years 1996-97 and 1997-98 in Income Tax Appeal No.1025 and 1026/M/2011 decides the Appeals and by a common order rendered on 15 April 2013. 3.The Revenue has only challenged the order in Income Tax Appeal No.1026/M/2011, which pertains to Assessment Year 1997-98. The penalty was imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the itxa2433-13.doc Income Tax Act, 1961, which was confirmed by the Commissioner. The penalty has been deleted for the reasons assigned in para 2.2 of the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal found that it was purely a mistake of the Chartered Accountant that he claimed deduction under section 10B of the IT Act, as per the previous practice and inadvertently he failed to take note of the amended provision. The Assessee-company bonafide relying on this computation made by the Chartered Accountant claimed an exemption. There was no concealment of income or non-furnishing of true particulars. The Assessee was claiming an exemption and erroneously. Since the conduct of the Assessee throughout was bonafide, the Tribunal deleted the penalty. 4.We do not find any substance in the contention of the Revenue inasmuch as such an order of the Tribunal cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on th face of the record. It does not give rise any substantial question of law. The Appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed. (A.A. SAYED, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J.)