Commissioner Of Income Tax,Kolkata - Ii v. Messers Hindusthan Copperlimited

ITA/581/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KOLKATA - II -Versus- MESSERS HINDUSTHAN COPPERLIMITED BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 7[h ]February, 2023 Appearance :Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv.…for the appellant. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv...for the respondent. The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ forbrevity) is directed against the order dated 24[th] January, 2008passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata(the Tribunal) in ITA No.2424/Kol/2007 for the assessment year2004-05. The appeal was admitted on the following substantialquestion of law for consideration : The only question which arises for consideration inthis appeal is whether the Tribunal was justified in levyingpenalty on the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Itis well-settled that in order to levy penalty under the saidprovision it should be shown that the assessee had deliberatelyconcealed the facts and furnished inaccurate particulars. TheCIT (Appeals) took note of the factual position and found thatthe amount represented the undisbursed sum relating to thevoluntary retirement scheme floated by the respondent/assesseeand the sums which were paid by the Government to therespondent/assessee to implement the said scheme. On facts itwas found that no inaccurate particulars of income wasfurnished by the assessee and the asseessee’s accounts wereaudited and the undisbursed sum relating to the VoluntaryRetirement Scheme was duly included under the head “Current Liabilities and Provisos In The Accounts”. Further, this factwas also noted in the notes of accounts. Thus the CIT (Appeals)held that penalty cannot be imposed. When the revenue carriedthe matter on appeal to the Tribunal the appeal was dismissedon the ground that the tax effect involved in the case is lessthan Rs.2 lakhs and it being a lost case, dismissed the appeal.In any event, the findings recorded by the CIT (Appeals) afternoting the factual position remains unassailed. There is noallegation that the assessee had furnished inaccurateparticulars, more so, when the assessee was audited and theundisbursed sum was duly included under the head “CurrentLiabilities and Provisos In The Accounts” and the same factwere also reported in the notes of accounts. Thus CIT (Appeals)was fully justified in allowing the assessee’s appeal and nosuch grounds have been made by the revenue to set aside suchfindings. For such reason the appeal filed by the revenue isdismissed on the above ground and the substantial questions oflaw is answered against the revenue. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) S.Das/sg/GH/S.Pal