The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai v. Ikhlas Investments & Services (P) Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1400 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai..Appellant. Versus Ikhlas Investments & Services (P) Limited..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.None for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & A.A. Sayed, JJ. P.C. : DATE : 5[th] July, 2011. 1.None for the respondent, though served. Heard. Admit on the following substantial questions of law. a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.5,23,726/- imposed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Range 5(2), Mumbai i/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 with regard to the addition of Rs.14,96,359/-. b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) in view of the amendment to explanation 4(a) to section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 being clarificatory in nature and consequently applicable retrospectively, as has been held by the Apex Court in the decision of CIT, Ahmedabad V/s. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. Perusal of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal shows that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) have been deleted relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Virtual Soft reported in 283 ITR 83. The aforesaid decision has subsequently been reversed by the Apex Court in the case of Gold Coin Health Food Pvt Limited reported in 304 ITR 308. 3. In this view of the matter, order dated 14th July 2008 passed by the Tribunal is quashed and set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law. 4.The appeal is accordingly disposed off with no order as to costs. (A.A. Sayed, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)