Itta/30/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. M/S Deccan Chronicle

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYANANDAND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY INCoME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 30 OF 2006 Appeal Under Section 260 A of the lncome Tax Act 1961 aggrieved bythe order dated 14-09-2005 in l.T.A.No.431lHydl2002 ( Asst. Year 1998-99 )onthe file of the Court of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-A,Hyderabad preferred against the order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax(Appeals)-lV ,Hyderabad in Appeal No. 225lJC R-6/C|T(A)|V/2001-02, dated28-03-2002 preferred against the order of the Joint Commissioner of lncomeTax , Range - 6 Hyderabad dated 30-08-2001 in GIR No. D-302 /SR -3 Between: The Commissioner of lncome Tax-lll, Hyderabad ...APPELLANT AND l\rlls Deccan Chronicle, 6-3-898, Somajiguda, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. B. NARASIMHA SARMA Counsel for the Respondents: None appearedThe Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HO]['BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJA:, ,BHUYAN AND TIIE [ N'BLE ] ICE C.V.BHASKA FI RE;DDY I.T.T.A. No.30 of 2006 JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon'ble the Cltief Justice IJjjal Bhuya,tt Heard IVir. B.Narasimhra Sarma, leurrL,:,1 StandingCounsel, Inc, >me Tax Department for the appellartr.2. T,ris appeal appeal has been preferred by tl.r: Revenue been preferred by tl.r: Revenue preferred by tl.r: Revenue by tl.r: Revenue Revenue as 2. T,ris appeal appeal has been preferred by tl.r: Revenue been preferred by tl.r: Revenue preferred by tl.r: Revenue by tl.r: Revenue Revenue asthe appellant under Section 26AA of the Income 1';rx r\ct, 196 I(briefly refer:ed to hereinafter as the Act'), assailing thelegality and ''alidity of the order dated 14.09.2C0.1 passed bythe Income lax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabe_d Bench A',Hyderabad Tribunal) in I.T.A.No.43l/Hyd/2CtO2 for theassessment y ear 1998,99. 3. Tl Le appeal arises out of levy of penalty underSection 27l(l)(cl of the Act. In the appeal, ttLe followingquestion has been proposed as substantial question of law: "On tht facts and in the circumstances of tt t: case,whether the findings of the Tribunal that the in€rccur.lteparticul us relating to depreciation schedule furnisbed by the Assessee are not intentional and it is a clericalmistake in nature and its consequential order cancellingthe penalty levied u/s.271 (1)(C) of Income Tax Act issustainable in law?" 4. On 02.02.2006, the appeal was admitted forhearing. 5. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant fairlysubmits that the disputed,penalty would be below Rs.50lakhs. 6. In the hearing today, we have perused theassessment order dated 28.O3,2OO2. We find therefrom thatthe taxable income of the respondent was determined atRs.85,00,480.00 and the penalty to be paid was quantified atRs.21,78,514.00. 7. 7. Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has issuedCircular No.17 of 2019, dated 08.08.2019, amending theprevious Circular No.3 of 2018, dated ll.O7.2Ol8, by furtherenhancing the monetar5r limits for filing appeals by theIncome Tax Department before the Income Tax Appellate I I ,7C-' & CVBRJI.T.T. A.No..)O of 2006 Tribunals, [Hi3h ]Courts and [Supreme ]Court [as ][z ][::nezrsure ][for]ation. In [paragraph ]2 [of ][tht., ][saitl ][cirt:uiar ][we]reducing [litig ]find that the [monetary ]limit fixed for filing an [.rp,perrl ][before]the High Cou ['t ]is Rs. 1.O0 crore B. In the instant appeal, quantum c I penalty1SRs.21,78,514 00, which is well below the moneta:y linrit. 9. Tl- erelbre, the appeal filed by the Deoar:ment isdismissed in terms ol the aforesaid Circular Nr, I 7 :f 2O 19,dated 08.08.110 i9. However, if the appeal com,:s, within theexception un ler paragraph 10 of Circular No.l! of 2018, itwould be ope 1 to the Income Tax Department to :iee.< revivalof the appeal. 10. Mjscellaneous applications pending, i{ arLy, shallstand closed. However, there shall be no or<ler ari [r:o ]costs. Tribunals, [Hi3h ]Courts and [Supreme ]Court [as ][z ][::nezrsure ][for]ation. In [paragraph ]2 [of ][tht., ][saitl ][cirt:uiar ][we]reducing [litig ]find that the [monetary ]limit fixed for filing an [.rp,perrl ][before]the High Cou ['t ]is Rs. 1.O0 crore B. In the instant appeal, quantum c I penalty1SRs.21,78,514 00, which is well below the moneta:y linrit. 9. Tl- erelbre, the appeal filed by the Deoar:ment isdismissed in terms ol the aforesaid Circular Nr, I 7 :f 2O 19,dated 08.08.110 i9. However, if the appeal com,:s, within theexception un ler paragraph 10 of Circular No.l! of 2018, itwould be ope 1 to the Income Tax Department to :iee.< revivalof the appeal. 10. Mjscellaneous applications pending, i{ arLy, shallstand closed. However, there shall be no or<ler ari [r:o ]costs. Sd/-B S.CHIRANJEEVIJOINT ITEGISTRARII/TRUE COPY// (t ',)SECTION OFFICER Toi. Th" ln"orne lax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad B'lnch - A,Hyderabad.i. Th" ln"orne lax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad B'lnch - A,Hyderabad. z. i6e Commissioner [of lncome ][Tax ][( ][Appeals ]) [lV ][, ][l{'lderabad']5. rii" Joint [c< ][mmissioner of ][lncome ][Tax, Range-6, ][Hy^derabad']a. on" cc t" [sR ][. ][B. NARASIMHA ][SARMA' ][sc ][for ][lncome T€x ][loPucl]5. rii" Joint [c< ][mmissioner of ][lncome ][Tax, Range-6, ][Hy^derabad']a. on" cc t" [sR ][. ][B. NARASIMHA ][SARMA' ][sc ][for ][lncome T€x ][loPucl] 5. Two CD [CoPie ;] HIGH COURT DATED:0211112022 JUDGMENTITTA.No.30 of 2006 DISMISSIN THE ITTA] WITHOLTT SOSTS .4===:r,i,-y\E sTAl7IqlkIJo1 5 [r''rg ][zt?l]v\o\