Commissioner of Income Tax vs Franus Waezicarg

No doubt the assessee had sought deduction u/s 80O even when the judgment of this Court in case of CIT v. Marketing Research Corpn. [1987] 61 CTR 204 against the assessee. However, we are still of the view that on that basis the assessee could not have been fastened with penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. It is because of the reason that judgment of Madras High Court in Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras-I Vs. Isthmian India Maritime Private Ltd., was in favour of assessee as per which deduction u/s 80O% was allowed. It is also a matter of record that view of the Madras High Court was later on accepted by the Bombay High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Asian Cables Corporation Ltd., . In such a situation, observation of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal that the assess made a claim with possibility of judgment of this Court being reversed on a future date could not be ruled out. The assessee may have made a claim in order to keep the-matter alive, however, it cannot be treated as a case of concealment of particulars relating to computation of deduction u/s 80O of the Act as likely pointed out by the Tribunal. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises. Dismissed.