MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.1890 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax.....Appellant Vs. Late Shri Harshad S. Mehta. ...Respnodent Mr. P.S. Sahadevan, fo the Appellant. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE, JJ. R.S.MOHITE, JJ. R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATED: 5TH MARCH, 2009 DATED: 5TH MARCH, 2009 DATED: 5TH MARCH, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Though several questions have been framed as substantial questions of law the real controversy is whether the Tribunal was correct in law in dealing with the penalty levied on the ground that no penalty under Section 27(1)(c) can be levied when Return of Income is not furnished. These are matters before 1st April, 2003. A similar issue had come up for consideration before this Court in CIT, CIT, CIT, Central -II vs. M/s.Growmore Research & Asset Central -II vs. M/s.Growmore Research & Asset Central -II vs. M/s.Growmore Research & Asset Management Ltd., ITXA No.675 of 2008 decided on 10th Management Ltd., ITXA No.675 of 2008 decided on 10th Management Ltd., ITXA No.675 of 2008 decided on 10th February, 2009 February, 2009 February, 2009 and we have taken the view that before 1st April, 2003 the penalty could have been imposed only in respect of assessee who had not been previously assessed. Admittedly in the instant case the assessee was previously assessed. Considering the said fact the question of law will be squarely covered by the judgment in Gromore Research & Asset Management (supra). In the light of that there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)