Ita/739/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Calicut v. Smt.a.p.beena, Souparnika

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2010 / 11TH JYAISTHA 1932 ITA.No. 739 of 2009() --------------------- ITA.479/COCH/2004 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT: ----------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: --------------- SMT.A.P.BEENA, SOUPARNIKA, JANATHA ROAD, VATAKARA. ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.....................................................................I.T. Appeal No.739 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 1st day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant andcounsel appearing for the respondent. Appeal is filed against orders ofthe Tribunal sustaining first appellate authority's order cancellingpenalty levied under Sections 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Actfor violation of Section 269SS and 269T of the Act. It is seen that firstappellate authority cancelled the penalty only because purchases arefrom another sister concern owned by respondent's husband.Accepting the explanation of the assessee, first appellate authoritycancelled the penalty which was confirmed by the Tribunal on secondappeal filed by the department. We do not find any substantialquestion of law arising from the orders of the Tribunal because on factsboth the appellate authorities found that there is no likelihood of anyevasion of tax on account of the technical breach committed by therespondent in paying cash for the purchases. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. However, we make it clear that our judgment applies to thepeculiar facts of this case only. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJudge P.S.GOPINATHANJudge pms