The Director Of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai v. Mumbai Cricket Association

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2621 OF 2011 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2622 OF 2011 The Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai..Appellant. Versus Mumbai Cricket Association ..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr.S.N. Inamdar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Mihir Naniwadekar for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. DATE : 19[th] March 2013 P.C. : 1.In these appeals by the Revenue for assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04, following common question of law has been proposed for our consideration. “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in quashing the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?” 2.The respondent – assessee had received infrastructure subsidy from the Board of Control for Cricket in India, which was credited to its corpus fund. The assessing officer initiated proceedings of re-opening the assessment and in the re-assessment proceedings held that the amount received as infrastructure subsidy was allowed to be accumulated under Section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). Thus, holding that there was no surplus during the subject assessment years. In spite of the aforesaid finding that there was no surplus available in the subject assessment years, the assessing officer imposed penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) deleted the penalty. 3.The Tribunal while upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A), held that there was no failure on the part of the respondent – assessee to disclose in its return of income the amount of infrastructure subsidy received by it. Both the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) and the Tribunal have recorded a finding of fact that entire facts were disclosed in the return of income filed by the respondent – assessee. Therefore, there was no concealment of income which would warrant levying of penalty. In view of the fact that the decision of the Tribunal is based on finding of fact, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. 4.Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. Sanklecha, J.)(J.P. Devadhar, J.)