The Income Tax Appellate Court disposed of the appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the Tribunal's order cancelling a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Relying on prior precedents, the Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal, confirming the orders of the Tribunal without costs.
The Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 21.06.2018
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Commissioner of Income Tax III, Chennai.
vs.
M/s.Sriram Chits and Investments P. Ltd., Greams Dugar, 4th and 5th Floor, No.149, Greams Road, Chennai - 6.
Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "D" Bench, Chennai dated 26.06.2009 passed in I.T.A.No.2118/Mds/2006.
Appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appellants V, Chennai in ITA.No.4/2007 -08 against the proceedings of the Income Tax Officer, (OSD), Company circle VI (2) Chennai in PAN AABCS/2726 B/GIR No. SH.145.
For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar and Mr.S.Rajesh
For Respondent : Mr.R.Sivaraman
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
The Revenue is on appeal by raising the following substantial question of law in respect of the assessment year 2002-2003:
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c)?"
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that against the common order passed by the Tribunal involving the assessee itself with respect to the assessment year 20002001, this Court in T.C.A.No.55 of 2010, by order dated 17.06.2013, has held as under:
5.We do not agree with the submission of the learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue, particularly in the context of the discussion on the role of a foreman and the acceptance of the case on the dividend under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Thus, going by the reasoning given in the order dated 30.09.2012 in T.C.(A) Nos.141 and 213 of 2004 and batch cases that, on the mere fact that the assessee had given up the plea of mutuality, one cannot immediately draw an inference that the assessee was lacking in bona fides in the matter of its claim.
6.In similar situation, in the decision reported in (2010) 327 ITR 510 (Del.) (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Zoom Communication P. Ltd.) the Delhi High Court brought out the distinction between a claim made with a bona fide intention and a claim which lacked bona fides, in the context of a deduction claimed under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Agreeing with the decision of the Delhi High Court reported in (2010) 327 ITR 410 (Del.) (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Zoom Communication P. Ltd.) and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2010) 322 ITR 158 CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd.) and 2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC) (Union of India Vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills), we have no hesitation in rejecting the Revenue's plea, thereby confirming the orders of the Tribunal.
7.In the result, the Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed. No costs."
4.In such view of the matter, this Tax Case Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IX)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mmi
To
KS(CO)
sm:5.7.2018
T.C.(A).No.58 of 2010
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c)?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
T.C.A.No.55 of 2010Explained¶18
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Zoom Communication P. Ltd.Referred¶19
(2010) 327 ITR 510 (Del.)
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Zoom Communication P. Ltd.Referred¶20
(2010) 327 ITR 410 (Del.)
CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd.Referred¶20
(2010) 322 ITR 158
Union of India Vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving MillsReferred¶20
2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Income Tax III, Chennai
M/s. Sriram Chits and Investments P. Ltd.
M.M. Sundresh
N. Anand Venkatesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
