The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S. Thakkar Vasanji Morarjee

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Income Tax Application NO. 435 of 1999 The Commissioner of Income-tax .... Applicant. vs. M/s. Thakkar Vasanji Morarjee .. ... . ... Respondents A. K. Kotangale for Appellant None for Respondents. CORAM:S. RADHAKRISHNAN ANDA. S. AGUIAR JJ. Date: 13/6/2005 P,C, 1.Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and theRespondents. Perused the order passed by the ITAT dated 8.2.99.The Applicant Revenue is seeking reference on the following questionof law: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was right in upholding the order of the learned CIT(A) held that the additionsmade by invoking provisions of section 41(1) orsection 68 of the Act did not amount toconcealment of income or furnishing of inaccurateparticulars within the meaning of section 271(1)(c)of the Act?” 2. The Tribunal's order also clearly indicates that theTribunal while concurring the order of CIT(A) observed asunder: “After considering the arguments advanced by thelearned D.R. and the facts and circumstances of thecae, we are of the opinion that the additions made byinvoking the provisions of section 41(1) or of section 68cannot, unless and until it is established that theassessee has either concealed or has furnishedinaccurate particulars of his income liable to be taxed,by itself be a ground for levy of penalty under section271*1)(c) and from the records available before us as well as the penalty order there is nothing, except thereliance on the disallowances factum of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the penaltyorder cannot be sustained. In view of these facts andcircumstances , we are of opinion that the CIT (a) wasjustified in canceling the penalty. The order of the CIT(A) is confirmed.” 3.Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances and inview of the above finding of facts, we do not find anysubstantial question of law involved in this appeal,necessitating a reference. Hence the application standsdismissed. S. RADHAKRISHNAN J. A. S. AGUIAR J.