IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 522 OF 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 24, 4th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai 400 012 Appellant. Versus M/s. Pramukh Enterprises, 16/2, Matru Mandir, Jawahar Nagar No. 2, Goregaon(W), Mumbai 400 062. ...Respondent. Mr. Nirmal C. Mohanty, advocate for appellant. Mr. R.K. Hakani, advocate for respondent. CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE : 29TH JULY, 2019. P.C.: 1 This appeal is filed by Revenue to challenge Judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal C Bench, Mumbai. Following question is presented for our consideration : 1 Whether on facts and circumstances of case and in Law, Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in dismissing appeal filed by Revenue and confirmed order of CIT(A) whereas CIT(A) has erred in deleting penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of Act, 1961, as assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars Talwalkar 2 27.itxa522.17.doc of income by claiming wrong deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of I.T. Act, 1961, as all conditions for claiming deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of I.T. Act, 1961, have not been fulfilled ? 2 issue pertains to penalty imposed by Asssessment Officer under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961( Act for short) against respondent assessee. 3 assessee had made claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of Act. housing project in question was not completed before 31/3/2005. Revenue contends that claim was therefore, not allowable and wrongly raised. assessee having lost upto Tribunal on quantum has filed Income Tax Appeal No. 2379 of 2011, which is admitted and is pending. In view of such facts, question of imposition of penalty has been urged before this Court by Revenue. assessing officer imposed penalty which was deleted by CIT(A) and order was confirmed by Tribunal. CIT(A) in particular observed that assessee's claim of deduction depended on interpretation of clarification whether time limit would be applicable to projects notified by Slum Rehabilitation Authority. question was whether this clarification Talwalkar ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2019 16:01:21 ::: 3 27.itxa522.17.doc would be retrospective. 4 Tribunal also confirmed this view of CIT(Appeals). We do not find that any question of law arises. CIT(Appeals) as well Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relied upon decision of Supreme Court in case of Reliance Petroproducts reported in 348 ITR 306 (SC), in which it is held that mere rejection of claim bonafide made would not be ground for imposition of penalty. 5 In result, Income Tax Appeal is dismissed. ( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ) ( AKIL KURESHI, J.) Talwalkar Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-24, Mumbai v. Pramukh Enterprise