Case Details

Citation(s)
2014 SLG 2269 2014 SLD 2269 (2014) 366 ITR 502
Bombay High Court
IT Appeal No. 424, 425 & 483 of 2012, JULY 10, 2014
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ
Suresh Kumar for the Appellant. J.D. Mistry for the
Respondent

Commissioner of INCOME TAX2

v.

Larsen and Toubro Ltd.

Law:

Section:

ORDER 1. When these matters were called out, one of us (Justice B. P. Colabawalla), indicated to both the Assessee and Revenue that he holds shares of Assessee M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd, but both the sides fairly stated that the matter may not be removed from our Board. There is no need for Justice B. P. Colabawalla to recuse himself from this matter. It is on that agreed understanding and basis that we have heard both sides. 2. Having heard Mr. Suresh Kumar at some length and perusing with his assistance the orders passed in these Appeals by the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the Revenue appeal is liable to be dismissed. 3. Imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act has been set aside by the Tribunal in all these matters on the findings of fact that merely because the Assessee raised a claim which was eventually disallowed, does not mean that ingredients of clause(c) are satisfied or fulfilled so as to justify imposition of penalty. 4. In doing so, the Tribunal merely followed the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several decisions and in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd [2010] 322 ITR 158/189 Taxman 322. The penalty has been therefore rightly deleted. 5. Such a finding essentially based on the facts and circumstances peculiar to the assessee, does not raise any substantial question of law. We are surprised if not shocked that such appeals are being brought before us and precious judicial time is being wasted that too by the Revenue. The least and minimum that is expected from the Revenue officers is to accept and abide by the Tribunal's findings in such matters and when they are based on settled principles of law. If they are not deviating from such principles and are not perverse but consistent with the material on record, then, we do not find justification for filing of such appeals. We have found that merely expressing displeasure orally is not serving any purpose. 6. Time and again we have to deal with such Appeals. Merely because they are filed that they get listed on the Daily Admission Board. The Advocates filing them and routinely, so also those instructing them do not have authority to withdraw them.…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492