The Commissioner of Income-tax(Central) v. Kakade Construction Company - 2015-LL-0423-45

Citation	2015-LL-0423-45
Appellant Name	The Commissioner of Income-tax(Central)
Respondent Name	Kakade Construction Company
Court	HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	23/04/2015
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	deletion of penalty • quantum proceeding
Bot Summary:	P.C.: Having heard Mr. Tejveer Singh, the learned counsel, appearing for the revenue in support of this appeal, we have perused the order under challenge which deletes the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It has found from the factual position that prior to the date of search, a return of income was filed and which came to be finalized. The search took place in the instant case on 11 th February, 2009 but the return came to be finalized prior to 11 th February, 2009. 13.doc orders in Quantum Proceedings by filing any appeal the Tribunal found that the original return of income was filed on 31 st October, 2005. The search took place on 11th February, 2009 and the deduction under section 80IB(10) was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on grounds not germane to section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Meaning thereby, there was no material found during search based on which the disallowance was made. The disallowance was on account of non furnishing of audit report under section 10 CCB and non furnishing of certain details as called for by the Assessing Officer.

1 3.itxa2095.13.doc sbw IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2095 OF 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) ..Appellant Versus M/s. Kakade Construction Company ..Respondent ........... Mr. Tejveer Singh for Appellant. ........... CORAM: S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & A. K. MENON, JJ. DATE : 23rd APRIL, 2015. P.C.: Having heard Mr. Tejveer Singh, learned counsel, appearing for revenue in support of this appeal, we have perused order under challenge which deletes penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2] Tribunal has assigned cogent and satisfactory reasons for deletion of penalty. It has found from factual position that prior to date of search, return of income was filed and which came to be finalized. search took place in instant case on 11 th February, 2009 but return came to be finalized prior to 11 th February, 2009. However, assessee may not have questioned 1/2 ::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 11:53:41 ::: 2 3.itxa2095.13.doc orders in Quantum Proceedings by filing any appeal, yet, Tribunal found that original return of income was filed on 31 st October, 2005. That was accepted by Assessing Officer. search took place on 11th February, 2009 and deduction under section 80IB(10) was disallowed by Assessing Officer on grounds not germane to section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act. Meaning thereby, there was no material found during search based on which disallowance was made. disallowance was on account of non furnishing of audit report under section 10 CCB and non furnishing of certain details as called for by Assessing Officer. In these circumstances, penalty as imposed cannot be sustained. We do not find such reasoning to be perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on face of record. This appeal, therefore, has no merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (A. K. MENON, J.) (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) wadhwa 2/2 ::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 11:53:41 ::: Commissioner of Income-tax(Central) v. Kakade Construction Company

Metadata

Judgment