HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 641 / 2011 CIT Alwar ----Appellant Versus Gillette India Ltd Bhiwadi Alwar ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Ms. Parinitoo Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR Judgment 02/06/2017 1. By way of this appeal, appellant has assailed judgment and order of Tribunal whereby Tribunal has allowed appeal of assessee and dismissed appeal of department. 2. This Court while admitting matter framed following question of law:- Whether Tribunal was legally justified in cancelling penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 1,17,46,000/- out of which penalty of Rs. 78,30,667/- was upheld by CIT(A). 3. assessment of same assessee for different years was subject matter of appeal being DBITA No. 853/2008 decided on 25/4/2017 wherein in para 3 & 4 it has been observed as under:- (2 of 2) [ITA-641/2011] 3. Counsel for appellant has contended that view takenby Tribunal is erroneous and requires to be reversed and findings arrived at by CIT(A) is required to be restored. 4. However, in so far as issue No.1 & 2 are concerned, counsel for respondent has relied upon decision of Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. (2009) 312 ITR 0254 which was followed by this Court in case of Indian Shaving Product Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax in DB Income Tax Appeal No.330/2005, decided on 10.01.2017 wherein it is observed as under: 3. Counsel for appellant has contended that issue is squarely covered by decision of Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. (2009) 312 ITR 0254. 4. Counsel for respondent has contended that same year by revocation order they have taken advantage of same decision. 5. Taking into consideration decision of Supreme Court, we are of opinion that issue is required to be answered in favour of assessee. Therefore, we remit matter back to AO who will consider aforesaid decision and pursuant to direction of Supreme Court exact amount will be calculated in favour of assessee. 4. Taking into consideration, issue of quantum is decided in favour of assessee and against department. 5. appeal stands dismissed. (VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. A.Sharma/77 CIT, Alwar v. Gillette India Ltd