IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.885 OF 2008 APPEAL NO.885 OF 2008 APPEAL NO.885 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax. ... Appellant. V/s. M/s Thakoor Constructions ..Respondents. Mr G. S. Pikale i/b S.V. Pikale & Co. Advocate for the Respondents. Mr K. R. Choudhari, Advocate for the Appellant. CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN and V.C.DAGA, JJ. and V.C.DAGA, JJ. and V.C.DAGA, JJ. DATED : 15th October 2008. DATED : 15th October 2008. DATED : 15th October 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : ---- ---- ---- 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. In the above appeal, the appellant is seeking the question of law on the levy of penalty of Rs. 4,06,501/- which ought to have been levied on the respondent. We have perused judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Sales-Tax vs. H. M. Commissioner of Sales-Tax vs. H. M. Commissioner of Sales-Tax vs. H. M. Esufali H. M. Abdulali, ITR 90 ITR 271 Esufali H. M. Abdulali, ITR 90 ITR 271 Esufali H. M. Abdulali, ITR 90 ITR 271. 3. After considering material before it, the finding of the ITAT that merely because of said addition was made on estimate basis on account of difference, does not necessarily mean penalty under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act ought to be levied. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances this is finding of fact. There is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)