1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1996 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Salvigor Laboratories Ltd. (Now merged with Aarti Industries Ltd.) ..Respondent. Mr. N.A. Kazi for appellant. Mr. A.R. Singh with P.S. Savla for respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 5TH OCTOBER, 2009. P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT, Mumbai was justified in ignoring the correct interpretation of explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, is clarificatory and not substantive as decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Ahmedabad V/s. Gold Coin Health Foods Pvt. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.5065 of 2008 dated August 18, 208 ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT, Mumbai was justified in ignoring the jurisdictional decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Chemiquip Ltd., 265 ITR 265 (Mumbai) and further justified in deleting the penalty of Rs. 4,76,550/- levied u/s.271(1)(C) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ? 2. The appeal is taken up for final hearing by consent of the parties. Both parties agree that the learned Tribunal has relied upon the 2 judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. V/s. CIT reported in 289 ITR 83. The said judgment since has been overruled by the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT V/s. Gold Coin Health Food (P) Ltd. reported in [2008] 304 ITR 308 (SC), the impugned order is set aside without going into the merits and demerits of the case and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh in the light of the judgment in the case of Gold Coin Health Food (P) Ltd. (supra). 3. The Tribunal is expected to decide the appeal afresh following the principles of natural justice and by giving a reasoned order. 4. All contentions of the parties are kept open. 5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)