Date Of Judgment 21-06-2018, Ita v. M/S Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21 DAY OF JUNE 2018 PRESENT THR HON’BLEK DR.JUSTICE VINBBT KOTHARI ANT) THR HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICEK S.SUJATHA I.T.A. No.506/2017 BETWEEN : 1.THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A)"[‘T]FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING,80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA,BBNGALURU-560095"[‘T]FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING,80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA,BBNGALURU-560095 «|THERE DEPUTLY COMMISSIONER OINCOME TAX CIRCLE-11 (1),PRESENT ADDRESS ACIT, (C-2(1)(1)~ FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, |80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA,BENGALURU-560095. APPELLANTS| (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) AND : M/s DECCAN MINING SYNDICATE PVT. LTD.,»v-/, FLOOR, ESTEEM ARCADE,NO.26, RACE COURCE ROAD,BENGALURU-560001PAN: AAACD 7081R_. RESPONDENT. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260-A OF]INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED29.12.2016 PASSED IN C.O.NO.78/BANG/2014, FOR THE.ASSHKSSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 PRAYING TO I. FORMULATE THE Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.506/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & Another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. II.ALLOW|THR APPBAL AND SET ASIDE THR ORDERS PASSBED BY THEINCOME-TAX|APPELLATETRIBUNAL, BENGALURUINC.O.NO.78/BANG/2014.DATED29.19.9016CONFIRMTHEORDER OF THR APPBLLATK COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRMINGTHR ORDBR PASSED BY THR ASST. COMMISSIONBR OF)INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU & ETC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, |Dr. VINEET KOTHARI, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JU DBGMEN Ti Mr. K.V.Aravind,Adv. for Appellants - Revenue This Appeal has been filed by the Revenue undersection 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 |'Act’ forshort], raising certain alleged substantial questions oflaw arising from the Order of the learned Income Tax.Appellate Tribunal dated29.12.2016passed in|CrossObjection No.78/Bang/2014 in MI.T.A.Nos.782 to785/Bang/2014in.‘M/s. Deccan Mining SyndicatePvt. Ltd., v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax’for Assessment Year2010-11,setting aside the penalty|imposed on the Respondent-Assessee by the AssessingAuthority. | Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.506/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & Another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 3/18 ? TheT€aSO>»nassignedby|thelearnedTribunal in the impugned Order are quoted below forready reference:| “14. Thus,applying the ratio laiddown by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the|case of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd.|(supra)1 and also the decision of the Hon’blejurisdictional High Court in the case of|ManjunathaCottonaGinningFactory(supra),since the present case in the absence ofany finding by the AO that the explanation filedin response to show cause notice for levy ofpenalty is false or not bona fide and in absence ofany conclusive evidence brought by the AO, weare of the considered opinion that mere additionto returned income does not result in qutomaticlevy of penalty. Therefore,we uphold thereasoning of the CIT(A) in deleting penalty inrespect of addition made of excess claim u/s10B of the Act. 15.As regards excess claim on accountofcomputationfromexportturnoverof|telecommunication charges, freight and travellingcharges etc., the method of computation of done Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.506/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & Another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 4/18 by the assessee-company is supported by thedecision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Courtin the case of'CIT vs. Tata Elxsi (349 ITR 98),the addition is made on mere debatable point oflaw. So, no penalty is leviable. Therefore, we donot find any justification in the grounds of appealfiled by the revenue and are accordingly rejected.The revenue’s appeals are dismissed. 16.Now|WE|Shall|dealwiththeassessee-company’s cross objections. Since allthe cross objections relate to the same issue, weproceed to dispose of the same in the commonorder. Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.506/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & Another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 4/18 by the assessee-company is supported by thedecision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Courtin the case of'CIT vs. Tata Elxsi (349 ITR 98),the addition is made on mere debatable point oflaw. So, no penalty is leviable. Therefore, we donot find any justification in the grounds of appealfiled by the revenue and are accordingly rejected.The revenue’s appeals are dismissed. 16.Now|WE|Shall|dealwiththeassessee-company’s cross objections. Since allthe cross objections relate to the same issue, weproceed to dispose of the same in the commonorder. 17.The cross objections are directedagainst the findings of the CIT(A) confirming levyof penaltyin respect of addition made onexcess stock found.Addition was made by theAO on excess stock based on information filed bythe.assessee-COMmpanyvideletteddated04/06/2010. It is not the case of the AO thatexcess stock was as a result of purchase madeoutside books of account. Excess stock, lf any, isonly on account of wrong entries in the books ofaccount. As a result of this, if there is higher stockthan shown in the books of accounts as at theend of the particular year, same should be Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.506/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & Another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 5/18 allowed as opening stock of the beginning of thenext year.Therefore, it is tax neutral and nomala fides can be attributed to the assessee-company in view of the fact that tax rates|applicable to all these years ts untform.Inany event, addition|Wasmade based oniinformation filed by the assessee-company itselfand it is not on account f any deletion made bythe AO and therefore, assessee-company cannotbe held to be guilty of furnishing inaccurateparticulars of income and no penalty is exigible.The AO Office had not given finding in the penaltyorder as to how and in what manner theassessee had furnished inaccurate particulars ofincome resulting in additions to the returnedincome, except making a bald charge against theassessee that it hadfurnished the tnaccurateparticulars, which is an essential requisite|of section 271(1})(c) of the Act. In the absenceof such finding, the penalty order ts liable to|be quashed.Reliance in this regard is placed on)the following judicial precedents the learned AOhad not given finding the in the penalty order asto how and in what manner the assessee had|furnishedinaccurateparticularsofincomeresulting in additions to the returned income,except making a bald charge against the 6/18 assessee that it had furnished the inaccurateparticulars, which is an essential requisite ofsection 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the absence of such|finding, the penalty order is liable to be quashed.Reliance in this regard is placed on the followingjudicial precedents: (a)CIT v. Balbir Singh (2008) 304 ITR125/ (2007) 164 Taxman 65 (Punj. & Har.)125/ (2007) 164 Taxman 65 (Punj. & Har.) (b)National Taxtiles v. CIT (2001) 249 ITR|124/114 Taxman 203 (Guj)124/114 Taxman 203 (Guj) (c)Nainu Mal Het Chand v. CIT (2007) 294 ITR|185/ 160 Taxman 49 (All)185/ 160 Taxman 49 (All) (d)CIT v. Super Metal RE-rollers (P) Ltd. (2004)2605 ITR 82/135 Taxman 407 (Dethi)2605 ITR 82/135 Taxman 407 (Dethi) (e)Diwan Enterprises v. CIT (2000) 246 ITR|O71 (Delhi)O71 (Delhi) (f)CIT v. Shivnarayan Jamnalal & Co. (1998)232 ITR 311/(1996) 89 Taxman 420 (MP)|232 ITR 311/(1996) 89 Taxman 420 (MP)| (g}CIT v. T.Abdul Majeed (1998) 2352 ITR90/ (1997) 93 Taxman 491 (Ker)90/ (1997) 93 Taxman 491 (Ker) 17.1 The Hon’ble apex court in the case of)Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT (2007) 291 ITR 519/161Taxman 218 had held vide paras 56 and 57 asfollows (page 546): 7/18 (b)National Taxtiles v. CIT (2001) 249 ITR|124/114 Taxman 203 (Guj)124/114 Taxman 203 (Guj) (c)Nainu Mal Het Chand v. CIT (2007) 294 ITR|185/ 160 Taxman 49 (All)185/ 160 Taxman 49 (All) (d)CIT v. Super Metal RE-rollers (P) Ltd. (2004)2605 ITR 82/135 Taxman 407 (Dethi)2605 ITR 82/135 Taxman 407 (Dethi) (e)Diwan Enterprises v. CIT (2000) 246 ITR|O71 (Delhi)O71 (Delhi) (f)CIT v. Shivnarayan Jamnalal & Co. (1998)232 ITR 311/(1996) 89 Taxman 420 (MP)|232 ITR 311/(1996) 89 Taxman 420 (MP)| (g}CIT v. T.Abdul Majeed (1998) 2352 ITR90/ (1997) 93 Taxman 491 (Ker)90/ (1997) 93 Taxman 491 (Ker) 17.1 The Hon’ble apex court in the case of)Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT (2007) 291 ITR 519/161Taxman 218 had held vide paras 56 and 57 asfollows (page 546): 7/18 “The term ‘inaccurate particular’s is notdefined. Furnishing of all assessment ofvalue of the property may not by itself befurnishing of inaccurate particulars. Even tfthe Explanations are taken recourse to, a)finding has to be arrived at having regard|to clause (a) of Explanation 1 that theAssessing Officer ts required to arrive at afinding that the explanation offered by anassessee in the event he offers one, wasfalse. He must be found to have failed toprove that such explanation is not only notbona fide but all the facts relating to the)Same and material to the income were not|disclosed by him. Thus, apart from his)explanation being not bona fide, it shouldhave been found as offact that he has not)disclosed all the facts which was materialto the computation of his income. The explanation, having regard to _ thdecisions of the court, must be preceded by|a finding as to how and in what matter he|furnished the particulars of his income. It tsbeyond any doubt or dispute that for thesaid purpose the Income-tax Officer must|arrive at a satisfaction in this behalf. (See|CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd.| 8/18 I2ZO000/ 246 ITR 568 (Delhi) and DiwaEnterprises v. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 571|(Delhi). 17.2 The|AOhasnot|foundtheexplanationfurnishedbythe.aAsSSCSSCinresponse to the show-cause notice to be false norfound to be not bona fide. Therefore, theExplanation (1) to section 271(1}(c) of the Act isnot attracted and, therefore, provisions of section2/71(1}(c) of the Act are not applicable as held bytheHon’bleapexCOUrLintheCASEOf|K.P.Madhusudhanan v. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 99(SC) and also in the case of T.Ashok Pati v. CIT(2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC), vide para 18 held asfollows (page 18): “Even if the explanation are takenrecourse to, a finding has to be arrived at)having regard to clause (A) of Explanation 1 that the Assessing Officer is required to)arrive at a finding that the explanationoffered by an assessee, in the even, he|offers one was false. He must be found to|have failed to prove that such explanationis:not only not bona fide but all the factsrelating to the same and material to theincome were not disclosed by him. Thus, Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.506/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & Another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 9/18 apart from his explanation being not bona|fide, it should have been found as of fact|that he has not disclosed all the factswhich was material to the computation ofhis Income.” 17.3 Even the Hon’ble Karnataka HighCourt in the case of CIT v. Sandur Manganese &Iron Ores Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 242 has laid downthe same proposition of law. The reasoning of theCIT(A) that penalty is exigible because excessStock was detected during course of searchproceedings is not borne out of any material orassessment records. Therefore, the finding of theCIT(A) on this is contrary to evidence on recordand cannot be accepted. 1S.In the result, appeals filed by therevenue are dismissed and the cross objectionsfiled by the assessee-company are allowed.” 3.Learned Counsel for the Revenue submitted| that since the Assessee surrendered his income totaxation after a search was conducted at his business|premises u/s 132 of the Act and therefore such a 17.3 Even the Hon’ble Karnataka HighCourt in the case of CIT v. Sandur Manganese &Iron Ores Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 242 has laid downthe same proposition of law. The reasoning of theCIT(A) that penalty is exigible because excessStock was detected during course of searchproceedings is not borne out of any material orassessment records. Therefore, the finding of theCIT(A) on this is contrary to evidence on recordand cannot be accepted. 1S.In the result, appeals filed by therevenue are dismissed and the cross objectionsfiled by the assessee-company are allowed.” 3.Learned Counsel for the Revenue submitted| that since the Assessee surrendered his income totaxation after a search was conducted at his business|premises u/s 132 of the Act and therefore such a Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.506/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & Another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 10/18 Surrender cannot amount to voluntary surrender andthe Assessing Authority was justified in imposingpenalty under Section 271]1]/c] of the Act, rejecting theexplanation given by the Respondent-Assessee. He has.relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of‘Commissioner of Income Tax v. Manjunatha Cotton& Ginning Factory and Others’ [2013] 359 ITR S565[Karnataka|, while summarizing the legal position aboutimposition of penalty under Section 271/1|/c] of the Act,holding that such imposition of penalty is not automaticand it depends upon the facts and circumstances of thecase. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case|oft|Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory|Ssupral,held as under: “Held accordingly, dismissing the appeals, (i) thatmerely because the assessee agreed to theaddition and the assessment order was passed|on the basis of this addition, when the assesseehad paid the tax and the interest thereon in theabsence of any material on record to show theconcealment of income, it could not be inferred Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.506/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & Another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 11/18 that the addition was on account of concealment.Moreover,theaASSCSSCEhad|offeredan.explanation.The explanation was not foundto be false. On the contrary, it was held to bebona fide. The cancellation of penalty by the|Tribunal was justified. (u) That the Tribunal was justified in holding thatthe entire penalty proceedings were vitiated onthe ground that the notice issued was not inaccordance with law. (ui) That the subject matter of the penaltyproceedings was the order of the appellateauthority and not the order passed by theAssessing Officer. Hence, the order of penalty bythe Assessing Officer was not valid. (w) That when two fact finding authorities weresatisfied that the explanation offered by theassessee was not false and it was a bona fidethough the assessee had failed to conclusivelyprove the explanation the levy ofpenalty was notjustified. ~ 4The first reason for which penalty in question was imposed by the Assessing Authority in the present case was on account of the excessive deduction claimed under Section10B|ot the Act which was set. Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.506/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & Another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 12/18 (ui) That the subject matter of the penaltyproceedings was the order of the appellateauthority and not the order passed by theAssessing Officer. Hence, the order of penalty bythe Assessing Officer was not valid. (w) That when two fact finding authorities weresatisfied that the explanation offered by theassessee was not false and it was a bona fidethough the assessee had failed to conclusivelyprove the explanation the levy ofpenalty was notjustified. ~ 4The first reason for which penalty in question was imposed by the Assessing Authority in the present case was on account of the excessive deduction claimed under Section10B|ot the Act which was set. Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.506/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & Another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 12/18 aside by the learned Tribunal, following the decision ofthis Court in the case otf‘Commissioner of Income TaxVTata Elxsi Ltda 1n 349 ITR O8. Another ground onwhich the penalty was imposed by the AssessingAuthority was the additions made in the income onaccount of alleged excess stock, holding which too was_set aside by the learned Tribunal vide Paragraph-17 ofthe impugned order quoted above holding that the saidalleged excess stock was not as a result of purchasesmade outside the books of accounts, but was only onaccount of wrong entries in the books of accounts andin any case the higher stock in trade declared as closingstock in a particular year would be taken as openingstock at the beginning of the next year and therefore thetax effect of such alleged excess stock is ‘Nil’ and thus itbeing a tax neutral entry, the learned Tribunal foundthat there was no concealment on the part of theAssessee, attracting penalty under Section 271]{1||c| ofthe Act. Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.506/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & Another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 13/18 5.The Judgment relied upon by the learnedCounsel for the Revenue in the case of“MAK Data [P| LTd., v. Commissioner of Income Tax - II’ [2013] 38.taxmann.com 448 is on diagonally opposite to)facts of this case. In that case on facts, it was found)that there was no explanation offered by the Assesseefor concealment of income of Rs.40.74 lakhs and the'High Court setting aside the findings of the Tribunal,held that explanation of the Assessee when suchsurrender of income was made by it to buy peace or toavoid litigation was not sulificient to satisfy theExplanation-1 to Section 271]1|/c] of the Act and inthese circumstances upholding the order of the HighCourt,theHonblepupremeCourtupheldtheimposition of penalty in that case. The relevant portionof the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is also.quoted below for ready reference: 7. The AO, in our view, shall not be carried|away by the plea of the assessee like “voluntary Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.506/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & Another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 14/18 disclosure”,peace’,“avoidlitigation’, “amicable settlement’, etc. to explain away itsconduct. The question is whether the assesseehas offered any explanation for concealment ofparticulars of income or furnishing inaccurateparticulars of income. Explanation to Section271(1) raises a presumption of concealment,when a difference is noticed by the AO, betweenreported and assessed income. The burden isthen on the assessee to show otherwise, bycogent and reliable evidence. When the initialonus placed by the explanation, has beendischarged by him, the onus shifts on theRevenue to show that the amount in questionconstituted the income and not otherwise. Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.506/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & Another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 14/18 disclosure”,peace’,“avoidlitigation’, “amicable settlement’, etc. to explain away itsconduct. The question is whether the assesseehas offered any explanation for concealment ofparticulars of income or furnishing inaccurateparticulars of income. Explanation to Section271(1) raises a presumption of concealment,when a difference is noticed by the AO, betweenreported and assessed income. The burden isthen on the assessee to show otherwise, bycogent and reliable evidence. When the initialonus placed by the explanation, has beendischarged by him, the onus shifts on theRevenue to show that the amount in questionconstituted the income and not otherwise. &. Assessee has only stated that he hadSurrenderedthe additionalSUTTOf|Rs.40,74,000/- with a view to avoid litigation,buy peace and to channelize the energy andresources towards productive work and to makeamicablesettlementwiththe income|taxdepartment. Statute does not recognize thosetypes of defences under the explanation 1 tosection 271(1)}(c) of the Act. It ts trite law that thevoluntarydisclosuredoesnotreleasethe Appellant-assessee from the mischief of penal Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.506/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & Another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 15/18 proceedings. The law does not provide that when|an assessee makes a voluntary disclosure of his|concealed income, he had to be absolved frompenalty. 9. We are of the view that the surrender ofincome in this case is not voluntary in the sense.that the offer of surrender was made in view of.detection made by the AO in thesearchconducted in the sister concern of theassessee. In that situation, itt cannot be saidthat the surrender of income was voluntary.AO during the course of assessment proceedings|has noticed that certain documents comprising of.Shareapplicationforms,bank|Statements,memorandumofassociation|Of|companies,affidavits, copies of Income Tax Returns andassessment orders and blank share_ transferdeeds duly signed, have been impounded in thecourse of survey proceedings under Section 133Aconducted on 16.12.2003, in the case of a sisterconcern of the assessee. The survey wasconducted more than 10 months before theassessee filed its return of income. Had it beenthe intention of the assessee to make full and truedisclosure of its income, it would have filed the|return declaring an income inclusive of the| Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.506/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & Another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 16/18 amount which was surrendered later during theCOUTSECoftheassessmentproceedings.Consequently, it is clear that the assessee had nointention to declare its true income. It is theStatutory duty of the assessee to record all itstransactions in the books of account, to explainthe source ofpayments made by it and to declareits true income in the return of income filed by itfrom year to year. The AO, in our view, hasrecorded a categorical finding that he wassatisfied that the assessee had concealed trueparticulars of income and is liable for penaltyproceedings under Section 271 read with Section274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 10. The AO has to satisfy whether thepenalty proceedings be initiated or not during thecourse of the assessment proceedings and the AOis not required to record his satisfaction in aparticular manner or reduce it into writing. TheSCOPE,ofSection271(1)(c)hasalsobeen.elaborately discussed by this Court in Union ofIndia vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008)13 SCC 369 and CIT vs. Atul Mohan PBindal(2009) 9 SCC 589. | 11. The principle laid down by this Court,|in our view, has been correctly followed by the Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.506/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & Another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 17/18 10. The AO has to satisfy whether thepenalty proceedings be initiated or not during thecourse of the assessment proceedings and the AOis not required to record his satisfaction in aparticular manner or reduce it into writing. TheSCOPE,ofSection271(1)(c)hasalsobeen.elaborately discussed by this Court in Union ofIndia vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008)13 SCC 369 and CIT vs. Atul Mohan PBindal(2009) 9 SCC 589. | 11. The principle laid down by this Court,|in our view, has been correctly followed by the Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.506/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & Another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 17/18 Revenue and we find no illegality in thedepartment initiating penalty proceedings in theinstant case. We, therefore, fully agree with theview of the High Court. Hence, the appeal lacksmerit and is dismissed.” 6.Thesaiddecision does|nothelpthecontention of Revenue before us, as there is no findingot fact before us to the effect that there was no/explanation on the part of the Assessee. On thecontrary, the findings of Tribunal are in favour of theAssessee. T We are satisfied that in the facts of the!present case before us, since the Tribunal has reiteratedthe findings of facts that both the additions made to theincome of the Assessee having been set aside followingthe decision of the High Court in the case of,Tata Elxsi Ltd., [SUpra] as far as issue of Section 10B is concernedand on the issue of excess stock being tax neutral, suchcogent and reasonable findings of facts returned by the Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.506/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & Another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 18/18 learned Tribunal and consequentially setting aside thepenalty under Section 271]1|/c] of the Act, does not giverise to any substantial question of law requiring theconsideration by this Court under Section 260-A of theAct. 8.The Appeal filed by the Revenue is thus.found to be without merit and liable to be dismissed|and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Copy of this Order shall be sent to theRespondent-Assessee. AN/-| Sd/-.JU DGE Sd/-.JU DGE