While Taking The Above View, The Tribunal Has Also Relied Upon A Judgment Of The Apex Court In The Case Of Motilal Padanpat Sugar Mill Co. Ltd v. J.p.devadhar,J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L)NO.1993 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.Shivshakti Urbn Co.op. Bank Ltd. ..Appellant ..Respondent Mr.Vimal Gupta for appellant. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. DATE : 25TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. 2.So far as question No.(c) is concerned, it does not arise from the impugned order. 3.So far as question Nos.(a) and (b) are concerned, the Tribunal has dealt with the same in paragraph No.9 of its order, which reads as under: 9.“We are in respectful agreement with the view so stated by the co ordinate bench. Viewed in this perspective and bearing in mind entirety of the case, as also the fact that the Assessing Officer has in some of the cases accepted the same explanation in the other years. We are of the considered view that the explanation of the assessee deserves to be accepted. It was a widespread, even if erroneous, belief that the provisions of Section 269 SS do not apply to the credit cooperative societies, andit is also evident from the fact that even the CBDT has taken notice of imposition of resultant penalties in large number of cases, and issued a circular highlighting that these penalties should not be imposed indiscriminately and without considering the scheme of Section 273B. Such a widespread belief, by itself, can be viewed as a reasonable cause for assessee’s bonafide belief.” 4.While taking the above view, the Tribunal has also relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Motilal Padanpat Sugar Mill Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. (1979) 118 ITR 326 (SC). The Tribunal has also considered the circular issued by the CBDT. The view taken by the Tribunal is a reasonable and possible view. No perversity could be demonstrated in the impugned order. In this view of the matter, appeal stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.