Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to an appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench 'A' dated 28th October 2005 in ITA No. 2171/Bang/2004. The Tribunal had partly allowed the appeal of the respondent-assessee, M/s BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd., against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 4th June 2004, which had confirmed the penalty levied by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II(1), Bangalore under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 26th September 2002. The penalty was levied for alleged concealment of income. The Tribunal, after considering the facts, found that there was no deliberate concealment by the assessee and accordingly deleted the penalty. The Revenue challenged this order before the High Court, contending that the Tribunal erred in deleting the penalty. The High Court, after hearing the counsel for the Revenue and the assessee, examined the order of the Tribunal. The court noted that the Tribunal had recorded findings of fact based on the material on record and that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order. The court held that the findings of the Tribunal were not perverse and did not warrant interference under Section 260A of the Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's order deleting the penalty.
Headnote
A) Income Tax - Appeal under Section 260A - Substantial Question of Law - The court considered whether the Tribunal's order deleting penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 involved any substantial question of law. The court held that the Tribunal's findings were based on appreciation of facts and did not give rise to any substantial question of law, and dismissed the appeal. (Paras 1-4)
B) Income Tax - Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) - Concealment of Income - The issue was whether the assessee had concealed income warranting penalty. The Tribunal found no deliberate concealment and deleted the penalty. The court upheld the Tribunal's order, noting that the findings were factual and not perverse. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 gave rise to any substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 260A of the Act.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order and that the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal were not perverse.
Law Points
- Section 260A of the Income Tax Act
- 1961
- Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act
- substantial question of law
- penalty for concealment of income
- findings of fact not interfered with
Case Details
2013 LawText (KAR) (09) 20
Justice Dilip B Bhosale, Justice B Manohar
Sri E R Indrakumar, Sr. Counsel for E Sanmathi Indrakumar, Adv. (for appellants), Sri S Parthasarathi, Adv. (for respondent)
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bangalore and The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(1), Bangalore
M/s BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd., No.64, Church Street, Bangalore
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal partly allowing the assessee's appeal against levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
Remedy Sought
The Revenue sought to set aside the Tribunal's order and confirm the penalty order.
Filing Reason
The Revenue was aggrieved by the Tribunal's order deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Previous Decisions
The Assessing Officer levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on 26-09-2002. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the penalty on 04-06-2004. The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal on 28-10-2005, deleting the penalty.
Issues
Whether the Tribunal's order deleting penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 gave rise to any substantial question of law.
Submissions/Arguments
The Revenue argued that the Tribunal erred in deleting the penalty and that the order involved substantial questions of law.
The assessee supported the Tribunal's order, contending that the findings were factual and no substantial question of law arose.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an appeal lies only on substantial questions of law. Findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, if not perverse, do not give rise to a substantial question of law and cannot be interfered with.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the order dated 28th October 2005 rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench 'A' (for short 'Tribunal') in ITA 2171/Bng/2004, whereby, the appeal filed by the respondent has been partly allowed.
The appeal before the Tribunal was arising from the order dated 4th June 2004 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore (for short 'the appellate authority') in an appeal against levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
This Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, is of the opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal does not give rise to any substantial question of law. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Procedural History
The Assessing Officer levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on 26-09-2002. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the penalty on 04-06-2004. The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which partly allowed the appeal on 28-10-2005, deleting the penalty. The Revenue filed the present appeal under Section 260A before the High Court on 11-09-2013.
Acts & Sections
- Income Tax Act, 1961: 260A, 271(1)(c)
