IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1289 OF 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax 8, Appellant Mumbai. Vs. M/s Armour Chemicals Limited Respondent Mumbai Mr. Arvind Pinto for Appellant. CORAM : S.V . GANGAPURWALA AND G.S. KULKARNI, JJ. DATE : 7 JUNE, 2017 PER COURT : Revenue assails order of Tribunal thereby allowing appeal of Assessee and dismissing appeal of Revenue. dispute is about penalty levied under Section 271 1(c) of Income Tax Act. 2 learned counsel for Appellant states that it is not case where additions had been made purely on estimated basis without reference to any evidence/materials on Dusane 2/2 itxa 1289.2014 record. Assessing Officer, after detail analysis and bringing evidence/ material on record, rejected books of accounts of assessee and estimated profits and said additions had been partly sustained by Tribunal. In view of that Tribunal was not justified in deleting penalty imposed under Section 271 1(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 We have considered submissions. It has been observed by Tribunal that impugned assessment was second round of assessment. In first round, CIT (A) had set aside assessment to be done de novo. In regular assessment, findings were based on findings for Assessment Year 1994 1995 wherein books of accounts were rejected and average rate of 3% of net sales and other income was applied. It was held by Tribunal that assessment was based on preceding year and in fact, in current year, there was no material, with which Assessing Officer could pin down assessee. 4 reason given by Tribunal is plausible one. In view of that, no substantial question of law arises. appeal is dismissed. No costs. ( G.S. KULKARNI, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) TheCommissionerofIncome-tax-8, Mumbai v. ArmourChemicalsLimited