Itta/605/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) v. M/S. Kanyakaparameswari Engineering Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD THRUSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OFDECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICESRI KALYAN JYOTI SEN GUPTA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No.605 OF 2013 Between: The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central),Hyderabad. ..... Appellant AND M/s. Kanyakaparameswari Engineering Limited,H.No. 4-8-757, Gowliguda, Hyderabad .....Respondent The Court made the following : JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri K.J. Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred against thejudgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated28.06.2012 in relation to the assessment year 2000-2001 on the following suggested questions of law: 1.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case andin law, the Hon’ble ITAT is correct in concluding that nopenalty under Sec.271(1)(c) is imposable when theDepartment accepted the revised income returned bythe assessee?in law, the Hon’ble ITAT is correct in concluding that nopenalty under Sec.271(1)(c) is imposable when theDepartment accepted the revised income returned bythe assessee? 2.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case andin law, the Hon’ble ITAT is correct in concluding that theexplanation of the assessee is bonafide and therefore nopenalty under Sec.271(1)(c) is leviable, more so whenthe return filed is not voluntary but only after discoveryconsequent to the search bythe Department and issue ofnotice under Sec.148 of the Income Tax Act?in law, the Hon’ble ITAT is correct in concluding that theexplanation of the assessee is bonafide and therefore nopenalty under Sec.271(1)(c) is leviable, more so whenthe return filed is not voluntary but only after discoveryconsequent to the search bythe Department and issue ofnotice under Sec.148 of the Income Tax Act? 3.Whether the order of the ITAT is not perverse as it hasfailed to appreciate the fact that revised return filedadmitting higher income is not voluntary, but was filedonly after discovery (of double claim of purchase),consequent to the search under Sec.132 and issue ofnotice under Sec. 132 of the Income Tax Act?failed to appreciate the fact that revised return filedadmitting higher income is not voluntary, but was filedonly after discovery (of double claim of purchase),consequent to the search under Sec.132 and issue ofnotice under Sec. 132 of the Income Tax Act? We have heard Mr. J.V. Prasad, learned counsel forthe appellant and gone through the impugned judgmentand order of the learned Tribunal. We have seen the facts.In this matter, after accepting the revised return, theAssessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings presumingthat the assessee has deliberately concealed the incomeby making fraudulent entries in the books of account.Learned Tribunal found that the pre-conditions for initiationof penalty proceedings are not satisfied. When this fact-finding is reached by the learned Tribunal, this courtcannot interfere with the same. Accordingly we dismissthe appeal. No order as to costs. As a sequel to the dismissal of the appeal, all the pending interim applications shall stand closed. ______________________Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ. December 19, 2013MAS ______________ Sanjay Kumar, J.