IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 794 OF 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-12, Mumbai Appellant V/s. Abode Construction Ltd. Respondent. Mr. Sham Walve for Appellant. CORAM M.S. SANKLECHA & NITIN JAMDAR, JJ. DATE : 16 SEPTEMBER 2019. P.C. :- Appellant Revenue has filed this Appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging order dated 8 July 2016 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. By impugned order Tribunal had dismissed Appeal filed by Appellant Revenue against order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting penalty levied on Respondent Assessee by Assessing Officer. 2. According to Appellant following question is substantial question of law that arises in Appeal :- Whether in facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal was right in holding that failure to disclose income by Assessee when project is complete would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income thereby resulting in concealment of income by Assessee ? 3. Respondent Assessee, company is engaged in business of construction and real estate. assessment of Respondent for Assessment Year 2004-05 was completed with total income of Rs.16,96,75,146. Appeal was filed and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) granted relief on account of receipt of Rs.13,31,96,400/- and irrevocable loan of Rs.16.75 lacs. Assessing Officer gave effect to order in Appeal and determined income at Rs.3,48,03,446/- penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of Act 1961. Respondent Assessee gave its explanation. Assessing Officer rejected explanation and imposed penalty of Rs.1,50,00,000/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to tune of Rs,3,48,03,446/-. Respondent Assessee filed Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Commissioner (Appeals) by order dated 27 April 2009 set aside penalty. Appellant Revenue filed Appeal ITA 4067/Mum/2009 in Tribunal. By impugned order dated 8 July 2016, Tribunal dismissed Appeal. Both, Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal held that stand taken by Respondent was bonafide, and levy of penalty was not warranted. 4. We have heard Mr. Sham Walve, learned Counsel for Appellant. 5. It has been case of Respondent Assessee throughout that it was under bonafide belief that method adopted by it was recognized method for computing income for construction business i.e. project completion method. question therefore arose whether action of Respondent was bonafide. It appears that project was subject matter of litigation before this Court. There was dispute between Respondent and Chandivali Residents Association and also between Respondent and Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority. There were claims and counter-claims made against Respondent and Respondent took stand that it would be appropriate to defer decision of revenue recognition till issue is settled. In fact, in quantum proceedings, when dispute had come before Tribunal, there was difference of opinion between members and third member had to resolve dispute as to when project is said to be completed for revenue recognition. This itself would support case of Respondent that it was under bonafide belief that project would be completed only after dispute is resolved. Thus, it is not case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to justify invocation of Section 271(1)(c) of Act. 6. In view of concurrent finding of fact by Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal, not being shown to be perverse or illegal, view of Tribunal calls for no interference. Thus, issue raised in Appeal does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Appeal is dismissed. NITIN JAMDAR, J. M.S. SANKLECHA, J. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-12, Mumbai v. Abode Construction Ltd