The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Inashik v. Anasaheb Ramesh C. Ajmara Nagarisahakari Pat Pedhi Dhule

{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 49 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-INashik. Petitioner/s Versus Anasaheb Ramesh C. Ajmara NagariSahakari Pat Pedhi Dhule. Respondent/s Mr. D.V. Soman,Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ. DATE : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2014. PER COURT: 1]Heard Mr. Soman. Mr. Soman submits that the substantial questions of law, as framed, that would arise for consideration, are as under :- [a]Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the learned Tribunal deleting the penalty of Rs.9,33,229/- for the Assessment Year under consideration without merit, is vitiated by ignoring legally admissible material and acceptance of irrelevant and inadmissible consideration ? {2} ta 49.09.odt [b]Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal was right in accepting ignorance of law as a reasonable cause despite the Statutory Auditor (Cooperative Societies Act) pointed out in its Audit Report about the said violation/default ? 2]This appeal challenges the order dated 30[th ]January, 2009, passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal and that of the Commissioner of Income-Tax Appeals, Nasik, dated 31[st] March, 2008. 2] 3]They have deleted the penalty imposed on the respondent, as in their opinion, the cause shown was reasonable and within the meaning of Section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4]The Commissioner of Income Tax, and equally, the Tribunal found that whether the penalty was leviable for breach of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was an issue, which was certainly relevant and there were different legal opinions. 5]Whether Section 269 SS applies to Credit Cooperative Societies or not was at the relevant time not decided finally. It is in these circumstances, that in case of another credit society, the cause shown was found to be reasonable and bonafide, then, the authority did not commit any error in deleting the penalty. {3} 6]The reasons assigned by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and particularly, from paragraphs 9 to 12, in the impugned order, do not suffer from any error of law apparent on the face of the record or perversity, nor they give rise to any substantial question of law. 7]There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. [RAVINDRA V. GHUGE] JUDGE [S.C. DHARMADHIKARI]JUDGE. grt/-