The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. M/S. Blue Star Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.2108 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax-I...Appellant.v.M/s. Blue Star Limited...Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.Mr..F. B. Andharujinha, Senior Advocate with Mr. B.G.Yewale i/by Rajesh & Co. for the Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.DATE : 7th March, 2013 PC: In this appeal by the revenue for assessment year 2001-02 following questions have been raised for our consideration. i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) in respect of dis-allowance made on account of curtailment of deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961? ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) in respect of dis-allowance made on account of duty draw back and dividend income from foreign companies offered to tax only when the case was selected for scrutiny? 2)So far as question (i) is concerned the Tribunal by impugned order deleted the penalty imposed upon the respondent assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing officer curtailed the deduction claimed under Section 80IB of the Act and consequent thereto levied penalty on account of curtailment of deduction. In appeal, CIT(A) deleted the penalty. On further appeal by the revenue, the Tribunal by the impugned order relied upon an order passed in respect of the respondent assessee for Assessment Year 1996-97 and upheld the deletion of penalty. The Tribunal also observed that the High Court had admitted an appeal on the question of law only in respect of the quantum proceeding for Assessment Year 1996-97. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal followed its order for Assessment Year 1996-97. The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the amounts were offered to tax suo moto by the respondent assessee and not consequent to detection by the revenue. Therefore, we find that it was an instance of disallowance of a claim and not a case of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In these circumstances, we see no reason to entertain question (i). 3)So far as question (ii) is concerned, in the quantum proceeding, addition was made in respect of duty draw back and dividend income received from foreign companies. Consequent thereto the Assessing Officer levied penalty under Section-271(1)(c) of the Act upon the respondent assessee. In appeal, CIT(A) deleted the penalty. On further appeal by the revenue the Tribunal held that amount of duty draw back and dividend income from foreign companies was offered to tax by the assessee voluntarily. The Tribunal returns a finding of fact that these amounts were offered to tax by the assessee on its own and not after detection on the part of the Assessing officer. Further, the Tribunal also records that similar income was assessed for tax in Assessment Year 2002-03 and the Assessing officer choses not to impose penalty upon the respondent assessee. In these circumstances, we see no reason to entertain question (ii). 4)Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.costs. (M.S.SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)