Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/1842/2009 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No. 1842 of 2009
=========================================================
COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX-III - Appellant(s)
Versus
PANCHRATNA
REMEDIES INDIA LTD - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MANISH BHATT, MRS MAUNA M BHATT
for
Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE
MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date
: 29/03/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI)
1. The
order under challenge, before this Court is of the ITAT, dated
18.12.2008.
2. The
brief facts of the case is that the penalty under Section-271(1)(c)
was levied on the assessee, to the tune of Rs.80,500/- for the
assessment year 1993-94, by the Assessing Officer, which was when
challenged by the assessee before the CIT Appeals, it had deleted the
same.
3. The
department preferred the appeal against the said order of the CIT
Appeals, wherein the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the department,
on the ground that the tax involved was below the limit prescribed by
the Board and further, also observed that there was no concealment of
any income nor had the assessee furnished any accurate particulars.
This order is under challenge before us.
4. We
have heard learned Counsel, Mr. Manish Bhatt, for the department, who
has taken us through the orders of all the three adjudicating
authorities. The Assessing Officer’s order reveals that he had made
certain additions to the income under Section-68 of the Income Tax
Act, having not found any proof in support of addition to the capital
and when no explanation having been offered with regard to the nature
and the source of such cash credit. It also, further, initiated the
penalty proceedings under Section-271(1)(c) of the Act and levied the
same on the assessee.
5. This
was when challenged before the CIT Appeals, it emerges from its order
that considering the facts and submissions, it had allowed some
additions and some reliefs were granted for the same, by giving the
reasons for the same. It emerges that even after the additions, the
assessment resulted into loss, it had, therefore, deleted the penalty
and the revenue challenged that before the Appellate Authority. The
penalty levied was to the tune of Rs.80,500/- and it is observed by
the Tribunal that the revenue effect being less than Rs.2,00,000/-
lacs, no appeal would lie to the Tribunal, in view of the
instructions of the CBDT. Even on merits, the disallowance of
administrative expenditure, as was found, to be on estimated basis
and not on the findings that the same were bogus, the Tribunal held
that the additions made under Section-68 of the Act would not
automatically result into the levying of the penalty.
6. On
closely scrutinizing, the reasonings of the Tribunal, on the basis of
the facts, we see no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal
which on both the counts i.e. lower tax effect as well as for
non-availability of any material to show either concealment or
furnishing of inaccurate particulars, choose to delete the order of
penalty, and thereby, upheld the order of CIT Appeals. When the two
authorities have concurrently found non-attraction of
Section-271(1)(c) of the Act, as well as on independently
scrutinizing when there is no merit in this appeal, preferred before
us, and when no question of law has arisen before us, the same
deserves to be dismissed and is DISMISSED, accordingly.
(AKIL
KURESHI,J.)
(Ms.
SONIA GOKANI,J.)
Umesh/
Top