1 47 ITXA 4140-10.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION K INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 4140 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-10 .. Appellant Vs. M/s. UHDE India Ltd. .. Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar a/w Ms. Padma Divakar for the Appellant Mr. F.B. Andhyarujina, Senior advocate a/w Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 12TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the question raised by the Revenue in this Appeal. 2 The Assessment Year involved herein is A.Y. 2001-2002. 3 The return of income for the Assessment Year in question was filed by the Assessee on 31st October, 2001. The revised return was filed by the Assessee on 26th April, 2003 for the Assessment Year in question by offering additional income for assessment. 2 47 ITXA 4140-10.doc 4 The revised return was accepted and assessment order was passed accordingly. However, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty under section 271(1((c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that, but for the notice issued under Section 142(1) for Assessment Year 1999-2000, the Assessee would not have filed revised return for Assessment Year 2001-2002. 5 The CIT (A) as also the ITAT have deleted the penalty on the ground that once the Assessee in the Assessment Year in question, has filed revised return voluntarily even before the issuance of notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it cannot be said that the Assessee has concealed any particulars of income, so as to attract section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In our opinion, no fault can be found with the decision of the ITAT. Accordingly, the present Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (K.K. TATED, J.)