Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Leela Sons Breweries Pvt. Ltd

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH I.T.R. No.28/1995 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Leela Sons Breweries Pvt. Ltd.) - 1 - --Jabalpur, Dated : 10012018 Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the applicant.Heard on the question of admission. The Revenue has filed this application under Section256 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 requesting for referringthe following questions of law for decision to the Tribunal :- (a)Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasjustified in law in cancelling the penalty levied bythe Assessing OfÏcer under Section 9-A ofCompanies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964? (b)Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case the Tribunal wasjustified in law in reducing the penalty leviedunder Section 9(a) of Companies (Profits) SurtaxAct to a nominal figure of Rs.3,000/- as againstRs.14,000/- levied by the Assessing OfÏcer? We have heard the learned counsel for the Revenue atlength. It is observed from a perusal of the order passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal rejecting the applicationfiled by the applicant Revenue under Section 256 (1) of theIncome Tax Act, that the order was passed by the Assessingauthority after issuance of notice to the assessee in respectof non-filing of the return and on account of delayed filing ofthe return relating to advance surtax. The Tribunal hasobserved that pursuant to the aforesaid notice, theassessee immediately deposited the tax in respect of non-filing of the return and thereafter also filed the return. THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH I.T.R. No.28/1995 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Leela Sons Breweries Pvt. Ltd.) - 2 - The Tribunal has also taken note of the fact thatconsequent upon the issuance of the aforesaid notice, theAssessing Authority passed an order imposing penalty uponthe assessee under Section 8 of the Companies (Profits)Surtax Act, 1964, which is not an order passed in theproceeding of regular assessment as the term "RegularAssessment" has been defined under the Surtax Act itself tomean the assessment made under Section 6 of the SurtaxAct and not the assessment made under Section 8 thereof.The Tribunal taking into consideration the aforesaid legalprovisions of law as well as the decision rendered in thecase of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mamta Tiwari,1988 171 ITR 59 MP, has rejected the application filed bythe Revenue seeking reference. Having perused the record as well as the impugnedorder, we are of the considered opinion that the proposedsubstantial question of law do not arise for adjudication inthe facts and circumstances of the present case. The application filed by the applicant Revenue is,accordingly, dismissed as the reasoning given by theTribunal is perfectly in accordance with law and does notwarrant any interference. pp. (R. S. Jha) J U D G E (Nandita Dubey) J U D G E Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL Date: 2018.01.11 13:20:32 +05'30'