Dismissed

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-1 v. M/s. Radical Bio Organics Limited

Telangana HC17 Aug 2023ITTA/323/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal rejected an appeal against the deletion of penalty imposed under Section 27(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned order relied on High Court decisions. This appeal fails as the Court found no substantial question of law involved due to pending review proceedings by the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was rejected and dismissed with no order as to costs.

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-1 Vs M/s. Radical Bio… — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t, l

¶2

[³³⁸⁶ ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO

¶4

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶9

NqOME TA)( TRIBUNAL APPEAL No: 323 ot2O22

¶10

lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260-4 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 arising out of the order of the lncome{ax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench^,B, Hyderabad, in ITA No.1633/Hyd/18, for assessment Y eat 2013-14 dated O1-O7 -2021 preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-3, Hyderabad, Appeal No.0533/lTO-3(2)lHydlClT(A)116-11, dated:24-O}-2O11, preferred against the Order of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Hyderabad, GIR No.AAECR6026Q, dated 22-O3-2O1 6.

¶11

Between:

¶12

The Pr. Commissioner of lncome-tax-1, Hyderabad.

¶13

...Appellant

¶14

AND

¶15

M/s. Radical Bio Organics Limited, Sy.No.36 3484, Jakkepally, Yalal Mandat, Tandur, Vikarabad. (PAN- AAECR6026Q)

¶16

...Respondent

¶17

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI J.V. PRASAD, SC FOR lT DEPARTMENT

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI S.V. RAMA KRISHNA

¶19

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶20

THE HON'tsLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

¶21

AND

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶23

I.T.T.A. No. 323 of 2022

¶24

JUDGMENT:

¶25

Heard Mr. J.V. Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax appearing for the appellant and perused the record.

¶26

The instant appeal has been fiIed by the Department assailing the order, dated Ol .O7 .2021 passed in I.T.A.No.l6.13/tli.'dl I B br ttre lncome-Tax Appellate Tribunal. lh dt:rabaC lJench 'lt'. I lvricrabad.

¶27

¶28

¶29

The primary challenge to the order of the Tribunal is so lar as deletion of the pcnaltl, imposed upon ttre respondcnrs under Section 271(1)(c) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short,^,the Act, I 96 1 '). Upon clue perusal of the impugnecl order dated O1.O7 .2021 passecl by the Tribunal, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal while allowing the appeal to the aloresaid extent has given justifiable eLnd rr_'asonable explan,ation and has also supported the reasons assigned in the light of r,he decision of the IIon'ble jt.rrisdictional I ligl-r Court,s decision in pr, CIT Vs. Baisetty (398 ITR 88| (Telangana & Apl and also another decision rendered by Lhe Bombay t{igh Court in Mohd. Farhan

i l

-E._____.=

-a-

A.Shaikh Vs. DCIT l2O2Ll [125 taxmann.com 253] (Bombay) (Full Benchl.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant, at this juncture, submits that so far as the judgments referred to by the Tribunal are concerned, the review is pending. Mainly, because a review has been preferred by itself, the same would not be suffrcient enough to hold that the hnding arrived at by the Tribunal was without any basis.

¶36

In view of the above, this Court does not find aly substantial question of law involved in the appeal and thus, the appeal fails and is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs.

¶37

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

¶38

stand ciosed

¶39

Sd/. K. SRINIVASA JOINT REGIS

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER