Itta/33/2001 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax Visk v. Godavari Co.op.milk Producers Union Ltd

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAHAND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM I.T.T.A. No. 33 OF 2001 Date: 07.11.2013 Between:Commissioner of Income-Tax,Visakhapatnam. ……Appellant And Godavari Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., Alcot Gardens,Rajahmundry. …Respondent Counsel for the Appellant : Sri S.R. AshokCounsel for the respondent : Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri CKR, J) This appeal is filed challenging the common order, dated28.01.2000 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Hyderabad Bench “A” (in short “the Tribunal”) in ITA Nos.383, 384& 1588/Hyd/92. The present case is pertaining to the assessmentyear 1990-1991. 2.This appeal is filed at the instance of the Revenueraising the following four questions of law under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in deletingthe penalty levied under Section 271B of theIncome Tax Act?the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in deletingthe penalty levied under Section 271B of theIncome Tax Act? B.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in applyingthe test of mens rea to the penalty proceedingsunder Section 271B of Income Tax Act?the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in applyingthe test of mens rea to the penalty proceedingsunder Section 271B of Income Tax Act? C.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in holdingthat delay caused due to delay in auditing by aGovt. Official under A.P. Co-operative Societies Actis a reasonable cause for non-filing of Audit Reportunder Section 44 AB of the Income Tax Act, withinthe time?the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in holdingthat delay caused due to delay in auditing by aGovt. Official under A.P. Co-operative Societies Actis a reasonable cause for non-filing of Audit Reportunder Section 44 AB of the Income Tax Act, withinthe time? D.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the order of the Appellate Tribunal in sofar as nullifying its earlier order and allowing theassessee’s appeal amounted to reviewing its earlierorder and hence without jurisdiction?the case, the order of the Appellate Tribunal in sofar as nullifying its earlier order and allowing theassessee’s appeal amounted to reviewing its earlierorder and hence without jurisdiction? 3. It is submitted at the bar by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the respondent that the above questions of law are squarely covered by the judgmentrendered by a Division Bench of this Court in ITAT Nos.50 of 2000and 21 of 2001, dated 20.06.2013, with respect to the sameassessee for the assessment year 1991-1992. By the said wellconsidered judgment, this Court has dismissed the appealsaffirming the order of the Tribunal. 4.In the light of the above judgment, the questions oflaw will have to be answered in favour of the assessee and againstthe revenue. 5.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, confirming theimpugned order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these appeals shallstand dismissed. __________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J Date:07.11.2013.Ssv ________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAHANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM SSV I.T.T.A. No. 33 OF 2001 Date: 07.11.2013