Therefore, No Penalty Could Have Been Leveled. Tribunal In Theprocess Referred To And Relied Upon The Judgment Of Supremecourt In Case Of Cit v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.[1].Under The Circumstances, No Question Of Law Arises. Tax Appeal Isdismissed

Priya Soparkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.799 OF 2016 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-12… Appellant V/s. M/s Hindustan Oil Exploration Co. Ltd. … Respondent --- Mr.N.C.Mohanty for the Appellant.Mr.Nishit Gandhi for the Respondent. --- CORAM : AKIL KURESHI AND M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 10, 2018. P.C.:- 1.The Revenue has filed this appeal against the judgment ofIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 31[st] August, 2015. 2.Following questions of law have been presented for ourconsideration: “i. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law, theHon'ble Tribunal is justified in upholding theorder of CIT (A) deleting penalty levied underSection 271(1)(c) of the Act on disallowance of Priya Soparkar 3.As can be seen from the questions, the issue pertains topenalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 4.The Revenue's main objection to the deletion of the penaltyis that the quantum additions deleted by the Tribunal, relating tothe penalty was challenged before the High Court by the Revenue.Learned counsel for the assessee placed on record an order dated Priya Soparkar 16[th] March, 2017 passed the Division Bench in Income Tax AppealNo.1777 of 2014 recording that the Revenue had withdrawn theappeal. In such appeal the Revenue had raised the question ofthe quantum additions being deleted in connection with theassessee's claim of deduction under Section 80IB(9) of theIncome Tax Act. This would mean that the decision of the Tribunalwith respect to the quantum additions has become final. If thatbe so, obviously the penalty in relation to such additions cannotbe sustained. Counsel for the Revenue stated that the order of theHigh Court dated 16[th] March, 2017 refers only to the additionsunder Section 80(9) of the Act. There were other additions in thesame assessment year 2007-08. If that be so, the rest of the issuesdo not even appear to have been challenged by the Revenue inthe said appeal. Even on that ground no further penalty can besustained. We also notice that the Revenue is contesting thedeletion of penalty of Rs.2,95,21,638/- on account of interestincome, foreign exchange gain and other miscellaneous income.In this context, we notice that the Tribunal has in the impugnedjudgment given detailed reasons and come to the conclusion thatthere was complete disclosure on part of the assessee and 4 22 itxa 799-16-o therefore, no penalty could have been leveled. Tribunal in theprocess referred to and relied upon the judgment of SupremeCourt in case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.[1].Under the circumstances, no question of law arises. Tax appeal isdismissed. (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (AKIL KURESHI,J.) ….