The Commissioner Of Income Tax,City-9, Mumbai v. Antariksha Dredging Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 1605 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax,City-9, Mumbai versus ..Appellant Antariksha Dredging Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent -------- Mr. Vimal Gupta, Sr. Adv. i/b Mrs. Padma Divakar for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. ............. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR & M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : 24[th] January, 2013 P.C. : In this appeal by the revenue, the following question of law has been raised for our consideration. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act amounting to Rs.34,14,812/- even though it was an admitted fact that a false claim for deduction u/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act was made by the Assessee Company in original Return of Income ?” 2The respondent-assessee had claimed the benefit of Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961(the Act) for the assessment year 2005-06. Subsequently, by the Finance Act, 2007, Section 80IA of the Act was amended with retrospective effect from 01.04.2000. On the amendment being pointed out, the respondent-assessee filed a revised return of income withdrawing the claim for deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. 3The Tribunal records the fact that when the respondent-assessee originally filed its return of income on 29.03.2006 (before the Finance Act, 2007 amendment) the claim was duly supported by judicial decision in favour of the respondent-assessee. It was only after the amendment in Section 80IA of the Act by the Finance Act, 2007, with retrospective effect from 01.04.2000 that the respondent-assessee was not entitled to the benefit of Section 80IA of the Act. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no penalty under Section 271(C) of the Act is imposable. In the above facts, the Tribunal held that there was no malafide on the part of the respondent-assessee. Further, there was no finding of inaccurate particulars being furnished or concealing of income on the part of the respondent-assessee. 5In view of the above, the proposed question of law is not being entertained. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)