IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 399 OF 2002 The Commissioner of Income Tax...... Appellant. vs. M/s Landmark Education India.... Respondent. Shri Parag Vyas i/b H.D. Rathod for the Appellant. CORAM CORAM CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. : V.C.DAGA AND J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. : V.C.DAGA AND J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED DATED DATED : 23rd August 2005. : 23rd August 2005. : 23rd August 2005. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned Counsel for the Revenue. He fairly pointed out that considering the quantum of penalty in the sum of Rs. 7360/- this application can be disposed of applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of CIT vs.Camco Colour CIT vs.Camco Colour CIT vs.Camco Colour Co.(2002) Co.(2002) Co.(2002) 254 254 254 ITR 565(Bom) ITR 565(Bom) ITR 565(Bom) followed by this Court in subsequent judgment in the case of CIT vs. Pithwa CIT vs. Pithwa CIT vs. Pithwa Engg.Works Engg.Works Engg.Works (2005) 276 ITR 519(Bom). (2005) 276 ITR 519(Bom). (2005) 276 ITR 519(Bom). 2. Even otherwise, on merits there is no substantial question of law involved in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (82 ITR 26). Thus, there is no merit in the application.Application is, therefore, rejected with no order as to costs. (J.P. (J.P. (J.P. DEVADHAR,J.) DEVADHAR,J.) DEVADHAR,J.) (V.C. (V.C. (V.C. DAGA,J.) DAGA,J.) DAGA,J.)