Axappellate Tribunal, Hyderabad (Tribunal), In I.t.a v. Reliance

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHANAND THE HON’BLR SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY I.T.T.A.NO.544 OF 2015 JUDGMENT: {Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan} This appeal, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(“the Act” for brevity), is preferred against the order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Hyderabad (Tribunal), in I.T.A.No.1717/Hyd/2014dated 27.03.2015. The appellants herein filed the appeal before the Tribunalagainst the order of the CIT (Appeals), Hyderabad, dated 30.06.2014-for the assessment year 200506.Pursuant to a search and seizure,action under Section 132 of the Act was taken in the group cases ofSujana Universal Industries Ltd., Hyderabad, during the financial year-200405.The respondents were assessed to tax under Section 143(3)read with Section 153C of the Act.An assessment order was passedon 22.12.2006 determining the total income as Rs.65,60,469/- asagainst the returned loss of Rs.99,73,735/-.The Assessing Officer-added Rs.52,85,744/ by recomputing the income under the head‘’Income from House Property.He also disallowed loss on the sale offixed assets claimed by the assessee for Rs.10,74,750/-.Aggrievedthereby, the respondent herein preferred an appeal to the CIT(Appeals) who dismissed the appeal.Consequently, the assessing-Officer levied a penalty of Rs.22,81,879/ under Section 271(1)(c) ofthe Act by his order dated 26.03.2009.Aggrieved thereby, an appealwas preferred.The assessee contended before the CIT (Appeals) thatthe assessee had neither concealed any income nor furnishedinaccurate particulars of income for the year under consideration andthat levy of penalty, under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, was notjustified.The CIT (Appeals) by his order dated 30.06.2015, followedthe judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance [1]Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., andheld that the assessee had neitherconcealed the income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of incomefor the year under consideration; and, therefore, the penalty underSection 271(1)(c) of the Act was liable to be cancelled.Aggrievedthereby, the revenue carried the matter in appeal to the Tribunal. By the order under appeal, the Tribunal held that addition, underthe head ‘Income from House Property’, was made by the AssessingOfficer only by recomputing the income; due to an arithmetical mistake,in the computation statement filed by the assessee along with its returnof income, the impugned additional had been made; this was evidentfrom the Statement of Taxable income, a copy of which was submitted;from the statement, it was clear that the assessee had disclosed all thefacts, relating to the earning of income from property, in the return ofincome filed by them; no particulars of income from house property-were suppressed; the addition of Rs.52,85,744/ had been made onrecomputation of income under the head ‘income from house property’;as such, levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c), with regards to the-addition of Rs.52,85,744/, was not warranted; the assessee hadneither concealed any income nor furnished inaccurate particulars ofincome for the year under consideration; there was no seized materialbased on which additions were made in the assessment; the loss onsale of fixed assets had been shown in Schedule 10 to the Profit &Loss Account; the assessee did not furnish any particulars with regardto his income; and the addition made by the Assessing Officer wastechnical in nature.The Tribunal held that levy of penalty underSection 271(1)(c) of the Act, in respect of this addition, was notwarranted. An appeal under Section 260A of the Act can be entertainedonly if a substantial question of law arises for consideration.It is only ifthe appellants are able to satisfy the Court that the finding recorded bythe Tribunal is based on no evidence or the finding is perverse, can asubstantial question of law be said to arise necessitating interference An appeal under Section 260A of the Act can be entertainedonly if a substantial question of law arises for consideration.It is only ifthe appellants are able to satisfy the Court that the finding recorded bythe Tribunal is based on no evidence or the finding is perverse, can asubstantial question of law be said to arise necessitating interference in appeal under Section 260A of the Act.In the present case, theTribunal has held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer wason recomputation of the income under the head ‘income from houseproperty’ and “loss on sale of fixed assets”; the assessee had neitherconcealed any income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of incomefor the year under consideration; and that the addition was merelytechnical in nature.It is not even the case of Sri J.V.Prasad, learnedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department, that the abovereferred findings of the Tribunal are either perverse or are based on noevidence.We see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the order ofthe Tribunal in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 260A of theAct. The appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.There shall beno order as to costs.Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shallstand dismissed. _______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) ___________________________ (M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J) 2[nd] November 2015RRB [1](2010) 322 ITR 158