Versusv. M. Salgaonkar And Brothers Private Limited v. Bakre, Jj.-Date:28Th July, 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO. 46 OF 2014 COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VersusV. M. SALGAONKAR AND BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED ... Appellant ... Respondent Ms. Asha A. Desai, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. A. F. Diniz, Advocate for the respondent. -Coram:RANJIT MORE &U. V. BAKRE, JJ.-Date:28th July, 2014 P.C.:- The Revenue, by filing this appeal, raised the following question of law for consideration of this Court : Under the facts and circumstances of the case whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that if the taxes have been paid under Section 115JB concealment penalty cannot be levied under Section 271(1)(C) for the concealment of income/furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding income under normal computation? 2. The similar issue came up for consideration before DelhiHigh Court in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd., reported in [2010] 317 ITR 543. The Delhi HighCourt, ultimately, held that if the taxes are paid under Section115JB, the concealment penalty cannot be levied under Section271(1)(C) for the concealment of income/furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding income under normal computation. Thisdecision of the Delhi High Court was carried to the Supreme Courtby filing a SLP. However, the said SLP was dismissed by the ApexCourt by order dated 4th May, 2012, reported in Commissioner ofIncome-tax vs. Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd., [2012] 21Taxmann.com 184 (SC). 3. The ITAT considered this decision and dismissed theRevenue's appeal. 4. We do not find any error in the impugned order. Theappeal, accordingly, is dismissed. ssm. U. V. BAKRE, J. RANJIT MORE, J.