Ita/444/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.pai Distributors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1932 ITA.No. 444 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST ORDER DATED 06/10/2006 IN ITA.729/COCH/2005 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT / RESPONDENT : ----------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): --------------- M/S.PAI DISTRIBUTORS, KOTTACHERY, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD. ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS FOR R SMT.P.K.PRIYA THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2010, ALONG WITH ITA NOS. 476, 512, 729,791, 792, 933, 1202, 1223, 1245, 1258 & 1405 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ.---------------------------------- I.T.Appeal Nos.444, 476, 512, 729, 791, 792, 933, 1202, 1223, 1245, 1258 & 1405 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 10[th] day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. Issue raised is common in all the connected 12 appeals filedby the Department, which pertains to 3 related assessee firms. 2.We have heard learned standing counsel appearing forthe appellants and learned counsel appearing for the respondentassessees. After hearing both sides and after going through the orders of the Tribunal, we notice that the Tribunal allowed the assessees'claim because the delay in filing the return was found attributable tothe Chartered Accountant to the assessees. Further the Tribunalnoticed that the Department accepted the explanation for belatedfiling of returns submitted by the assessees and given up thepenalty initiated under Section 271B. Admittedly, the assesseeswere enjoying registration, and the renewal of registration for the I.T.Appeal Nos.444 & 476 of 2009 & connected cases -2- assessment years involved in these cases is only on account of delayin filing the return. Besides the reason found for the delay asattributable to the Chartered Accountant, the Tribunal also noticedthat the assessees had paid advance tax. So much so, we are of theview that the acceptance of the explanation offered by the assesseesfor the delay in filing the return does not give rise to any substantialquestion of law for our decision. All these appeals are consequentlydismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JUDGE) jg