The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-3, Mumbai v. Icici Bank Ltd

T IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3595 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income-tax-3, Mumbai ..Appellant Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd .. Respondent. Mr.Vimal Gupta, for the Appellant. Mr S.P.Mehta, for Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.A. SAYED, JJ.DATE : 07[th] July,2011. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act is the question raised in this appeal. In the present case, perusal of the order passed by the ITAT shows that the assessee had made a wrong claim which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer and the same was confirmed by the appellate authority. The tribunal has recorded the finding of fact that the claim made by the asseessee was a bonafide claim and, therefore imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not justifiable. We see no infirmity in the order passed by the ITAT. In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act is the question raised in this appeal. In the present case, perusal of the order passed by the ITAT shows that the assessee had made a wrong claim which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer and the same was confirmed by the appellate authority. The tribunal has recorded the finding of fact that the claim made by the asseessee was a bonafide claim and, therefore imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not justifiable. We see no infirmity in the order passed by the ITAT. In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( A.A. SAYED, J. ) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)