The Commissioner Of Income Tax – Iii } v. This Appeal Was Heard By Us On The Earlier Occasion And

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1656 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax – III}AppellantversusRunwal Erectors Private Limited}Respondent Mr. Tejweer Singh for the Appellant. P.C. :- CORAM :-S.C.DHARMADHIKARI &A.A.SAYED, JJ.DATED :-NOVEMBER 19, 2014 This Appeal was heard by us on the earlier occasion and was placed for passing of orders today. 2)The Revenue is aggrieved by the order passed on 30[th ]January, 2012 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Income Tax Appeal No. 565/PN/2010. The Assessment year is 2005-06. 3)Mr. Tejveer Singh submitted that this Appeal raises substantial questions of law and particularly because of the approach of the Tribunal in deleting the penalty. He therefore prayed that the Appeal be admitted. 4)The learned Counsel appearing for the Assessee, on the other hand, submitted that the Tribunal has deleted the penalty only because the issue was debatable. When such is the finding of fact that the Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law, it should be dismissed. 5)We have perused the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and that of the Tribunal. The Commissioner has found that there is a concealment of particulars of income so also the Assessee has furnished incorrect particulars of income. By voluntarily withdrawing the claim of deduction, the Assessee has admitted this aspect and therefore, the penalty deserves to be imposed. 6)Upon perusal of the entire record, the Tribunal concluded in para 4 that the claim made under section 80B(10) of the Income Tax Act was debatable. It may or may not have been allowed, however, the claim for deduction under that provision was voluntarily withdrawn by the Assessee. At the same time, he had placed on record all the details. The Revenue has not concluded that the information supplied was in any way incorrect or erroneous or false. Merely asserting or making a claim for deduction does not mean that the ingredients of section 271(1)(c) are attracted. Something more was required to be brought on record and established. That was not brought on record by the Revenue and hence, the Tribunal deleted the penalty. 7)We do not find that such a order and direction of the Tribunal and in the peculiar facts and circumstances raises any substantial question of law. The Tribunal has rightly allowed the Assessee's Appeal and deleted the penalty. We do not find any merit in this Appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (A.A.SAYED, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)