IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 324 OF 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax 10 Appellant V/s. M/s. Aarti Industries Ltd. Respondent Mr.Arvind Pinto for Appellant. Mr.Rahul Hakani for Respondent. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND A.M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 28 JUNE, 2017. PER COURT : 1] Revenue assails order of Tribunal on following grounds; 6.1 Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in l aw, Hon'ble Tribunal was right in deleting penalty imposed by Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A) u/s.271(1)(c). 6.2 Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal was justified in deleting penalty on deduction claimed u/s 35(2AB), when Company had filed inaccurate particulars in that it did not receive necessary approval before filing of return wherein claim was made. 1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2017 17:24:10 ::: osk 102 ITXA 324 2014.odt 6.3 Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal was in error in deleting penalty imposed by AO on wrong claim made by claiming long term capital loss when Company was not entitled for same. 2] Mr.Pinto, learned counsel for Revenue submits that when company had filed inaccurate particulars, in that, he did not receive necessary approval before filing of return, when any claim was made. Tribunal was not justified in setting aside order imposing penalty. When penalty was imposed, Commissioner had upheld order of Assessing Officer and it is subsequently only Tribunal had deleted said addition. learned counsel submits that Assessee had made wrong claim, claiming long term capital when company was not entitled to. 3] Learned counsel for Respondents supports impugned order. 4] We have gone through order passed by Tribunal and have also considered contentions raised by learned counsel for respective parties. 5] Tribunal has observed that Assessee had declared 2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2017 17:24:10 ::: osk 102 ITXA 324 2014.odt all particulars in return itself. addition made by Assessing Officer has been set aside by Tribunal. As such when quantum Appeal of Assessee was allowed, order of penalty on it cannot be sustained. Tribunal has restored issue relating to levy of concealment penalty with regard to file of Assessing Officer with direction to re adjudicate same after deciding quantum. 6] Tribunal has considered all relevant aspects of matter. 7] Considering aforesaid, no substantial question of law arises. As such, Appeal is dismissed. No costs. (A.M. BADAR, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) CommissionerofIncome-tax-10 v. AartiIndustriesLtd