Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MORADABAD versus MANTHA & ALLIED PRODUCTS (P) LTD., RAMPUR

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner Of Income Tax Moradabad v. Mantha & Allied Products (P) Ltd., Rampur - INCOME TAX APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 121 of 2001 [2007] RD-AH 14486 (27 August 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 37

Income Tax Appeal No. 121 (Defective) of 2001

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Moradabad and another

Versus

M/s. Mentha & Allied Products Pvt. Ltd.

_________

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

We have heard learned counsel for the Income Tax Department as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.

A return was filed by the assessee without including therein cash compensatory support amounting to Rs. 65,61,640/- The cash compensatory support is hereinafter referred to as the 'CCS' for short. This non-inclusion was based upon a decision of a Special Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, in the case of Gedore Tools India Private Limited Versus I.A.C. Reported in 25 I.T.D. 194. Subsequently, the Finance Act 1990 vide its section 20(iii)(b) brought about an amendment, with retrospective effect, that the cash assistance was taxable. In view of this amendment, the assessee voluntarily filed a revised return and included the CCS therein.

The Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Rs. 37,89,350/- holding that the non-inclusion of CCS in the original return amounted to 'concealment'.

The Appellate Authority set-aside the penalty on the ground that, because the revised return was filed voluntarily and the earlier non-inclusion of CCS had a plausible cause, namely the decision of the Special Bench, I.T.A.T., Delhi, therefore the act of the assessee could not be held to amount to 'concealment'. The order of the Appellate Authority has been upheld by the Tribunal.

The assessee has challenged Tribunal's order in this appeal under section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alleging that the following questions of law are involved.

"(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was legally justified in upholding the order of C.I.T. (A) who cancelled the penalty of Rs. 37,89,350/- levied under section 271(1)(C)?

(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the assessee filed revised return suo moto while it was filed after issue of notice under section 142(1) on 30.1.1991?

(c ) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was legally justified in not considering the ratio of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 186 ITR 571 (SC)?"

Having regard to the facts mentioned above, we are of the opinion that the appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Dated: August 27, 2007

AM/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.