1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2206 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-8 ...Appellant. V/s. Sulphur Mills Ltd. . ... Respondent. ---- Mr. Suresh Kumar, for the Appellant. Mr. K. Shivram i/b Ajay R. Singh, for the Respondent. ---- CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 15TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the revenue and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused appeal. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.8.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The question revolves around the penalty imposed on the assessee. The relevant part of the said order reads thus: “The case of the assessee is that it had made a bonafide claim adopting a particular interpretation of legal provisions and all particulars of the 2 claim had been filed. There was therefore no concealment. On careful consideration of all the aspects of the case, we agree that it was only a bonafide claim because the same had been made based on the certificate of the CA which was mandatory. These are specialised provisions on which bonafide differences of opinion is possible regarding the scope of extent of allowability. Admittedly, the assessee has not concealed any particulars of income which had been fully disclosed. In our view, on facts of the case, the explanation of the assessee has to be considered as bonafide within the meaning of the words used in the Explanation 1 to section 27(1)(c) and penalty for concealment will not therefore be justified. Accordingly we set aside the order of the CIT(A). In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed.” 3. Having seen the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal based on appreciation of evidence, we do not find any substantial question of law arising in the appeal. In the result, this appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of substantial question of law. Order accordingly. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)