1 ITA17.2013 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. rt INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2013 ou Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Road, Nashik. ...Appellant.. C Versus Dhule Dist. Central Co-op Bank, Shivaji Road, Dhule, PAN : AAAD1108K ..Respondent.. h WITH ig INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, H Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Road, Nashik. ...Appellant.. Versus y Dhule Dist. Central Co-op Bank, Shivaji Road, Dhule, PAN : AAAD1108K ..Respondent.. ba WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2013 om Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Road, Nashik. ...Appellant.. Versus B Dhule Dist. Central Co-op Bank, Shivaji Road, Dhule, PAN : AAAD1108K ..Respondent.. -------------------- In all matters: Shri D. V. Soman, Advocate for appellant Shri R. R. Chandak, Advocate for respondent -------------------- ::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2016 19:47:19 ::: 2 ITA17.2013 CORAM : A. V. NIRGUDE & V. L. ACHLIYA, JJ. rt DATE : DECEMBER 5TH, 2014. ou ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER A. V. NIRGUDE, J.) 1. Income Tax Appeal No. 16 of 2013 is not on Board. C same is taken on Board at request of learned Counsel for respective parties. h 2. ig All these appeals are filed against concurrent findings of Courts below that respondent s case does not H fall within ambit of Section 271(C) of Income Tax Act, which provides initiation of penalty proceedings for concealment y of income etc. authorities below mostly on facts ba concurrently held that respondent cannot be held to be responsible for purposefully concealing certain amount of its om income. facts of these cases are quite glaring. respondent in all these appeals is District Central Cooperative B Bank. In year 2003-04, it has submitted its income tax return showing huge amount of loss and, therefore, there was no question of paying income tax. Certain deductions were shown on account of direction issued by Reserve Bank of India. Bank did not know, this deduction is not permissible under ::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2016 19:47:19 ::: 3 ITA17.2013 provisions of Income Tax Act. This error was pointed out by rt Assessing Officer and notice under Section 148 was issued. Pursuant to notice, new return was filed correcting ou error committed earlier. Assessing Officer was not happy with this and he initiated penalty proceedings under Section C 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act. Assessing Officer imposed penalty but, appellate Court held that this is case of h ignorance of law and then held concurrently that respondent cannot be penalized. ig H 3. learned Counsel for appellant tried to suggest that in facts and circumstances of this case, y substantial question of law is arising as to whether ba authorities below erred in setting aside penalty imposed on respondent. learned Counsel for appellant also om placed reliance on judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax I, Ahmedabad B Versus Gold Coin Health Food Private Limited reported in (2008) 9 SCC 622. 4. Supreme Court in above cited judgment held that, even concealment of negative loss would result into ::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2016 19:47:19 ::: 4 ITA17.2013 penalty proceedings. However, this ratio is not applicable to rt facts of this case. Assessment Officer rightly held that there was concealment of loss in case of respondent s income tax ou return, however, other facts clearly indicated that concealment was not purposeful and for not achieving any C benefit. In view of this, Court holds that no substantial question of law arises in these appeals for consideration. h 5. ig Hence, Income Tax Appeals stand disposed of. H (V. L. ACHLIYA, J.) (A. V. NIRGUDE, J.) y ba sgp om B ::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2016 19:47:19 ::: Commissioner of Income-tax-I v. Dhule Dist. Central Co-op Bank