Itta/61/2022 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Central v. Sri Ch.govardhan Naidu

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AAT HYDERABAD THURSDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF MARCHTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYANTHE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA INCOME TAx TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 61 OF 2022 Income Tax Tribunal Appeal under Section 260 A of the lT Act, 196'1 against the orderof the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench "A", Hyderabad in ITANo.2108/Hyderabad/2018, for assessment Years 2007-2008 dated 08.06.2021preferred against the order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-ll, Hyderabadin Appeal No.47212016-l7lDClT CC-1(2yClT(A)-11, Hyderabad./18-19, dated13.07.2018 preferred against the Order of the Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax,Central Circle-2, Hyderabad in PAN/GlR No. .dated 25.03.201 3. Between:Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax Central, 7th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan,Basheerbagh, Hyderabad [- ]500 004....APPELLANT(S)AND Sri Ch.Govardhan Naidu, D.No.3-942, YI\,IR Colony, Proddutur, Kadapa District,Andhra Pradesh. PAN No. ADDPC6489[/ RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:SRl. B NARASIMHA SARMA Sr SC for lT DepartmentCounsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEAREDThe Court made the following: ORDER L THE HONOURABLE [UJJAL BHtryAN] AND THE HONOURABLE [DT. ] l.T.T.A. [No.61 ][of 2022] JUDG[MENT:][ (Per ][Hon'bte ][Sri ][Justice ][UiaI ][Bhuuan)] Heard Mr. [B'Narasimha ][Sarma' learned ][Standing]Counsel, [Income Tax ][Department ][for ][the appellant'] 2. This appeal [has ][been preferred ][by the ][revenue ][as]the appellant [und'er ][Section ][260A of ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Act' ][1961](briefly referred [to ][hereinafter ][as ][the ]['Act')' ][against ][the ][order]dated [08.06.2021 passed ][by the ][Income ][Tax ][Appellate]Tribunal, [Hyderabad ][Bench-A' ][Hyderabad (Tribunal) ][in]I.T.A.No.210 I [Hydl ][2ol}for ][the ][assessment year ][2OO7 ][-2OOB'] AS3. The [following ][questions ][have been ][proposed]sub stantial [questions ][of ][lalr':] 'iIn the facts [and ][circumstances ][of the ][case' tuhether]tlrc order [of ][the ][Tlibunat ][(ITAT ][in ][setting ][aside ][the]penalties [under ][Section ][271D/ ][2718 ][of the ][Income ][Tcr'r]Act 1961 for [uiolation ][of ][Section ][26955/269T ][of ][the]1961 Luithout [consideing ][ond]Income [Tax ][Act]and- reasons [mentioned ][in ][the]deciding [the ]facts orders of the Reuenue and merely on the ground thatthe Tribunal (ITAT) in its earlier orders reuersed thethe Tribunal (ITAT) in its earlier orders reuersed theorder under Section 263 of the Income Tar Act 1961for [the ][subject ][assessments ]ls [not peruerse, ]illegaland ltable to be set-oside?for [the ][subject ][assessments ]ls [not peruerse, ]illegaland ltable to be set-oside? Lt.In the facts and circumstances of the case, wLether theTibunal (ITAT) is correct in law in setting aside thepenalties leuied under Section 271D/271E of theIncome Tax Act 1961 basing on its orders reuersingthe reuisional order under Section 263 of the IncomeTo-x Act 1961 for the subject assessmenf uithoutapprectating the fact that the subject penaltg ordersare for uiolation of Section 26955/269T of the IncomeTox Act 1961 and haue no much beartng on the ordersrelating to subject assessment2Tibunal (ITAT) is correct in law in setting aside thepenalties leuied under Section 271D/271E of theIncome Tax Act 1961 basing on its orders reuersingthe reuisional order under Section 263 of the IncomeTo-x Act 1961 for the subject assessmenf uithoutapprectating the fact that the subject penaltg ordersare for uiolation of Section 26955/269T of the IncomeTox Act 1961 and haue no much beartng on the ordersrelating to subject assessment2 Illln the facts and circunstances of the case, u.thether theTibunal (ITAT) is correct in law in deleting the penaltyunder Section 271D/2718 of the Income Tax Act1961?Tibunal (ITAT) is correct in law in deleting the penaltyunder Section 271D/2718 of the Income Tax Act1961? Illln the facts and circunstances of the case, u.thether theTibunal (ITAT) is correct in law in deleting the penaltyunder Section 271D/2718 of the Income Tax Act1961?Tibunal (ITAT) is correct in law in deleting the penaltyunder Section 271D/2718 of the Income Tax Act1961? IUIn the facts and circttmstances of the case whether the?ibunal (IfAq is correct in lato in holding that thepenoLtA had aisen from the order under Section 263of the Income Tox Act 1961 u.then the PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax had not giuen anydirection regording penalty in his order under Section263 of the Income Tox Act 1961??ibunal (IfAq is correct in lato in holding that thepenoLtA had aisen from the order under Section 263of the Income Tox Act 1961 u.then the PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax had not giuen anydirection regording penalty in his order under Section263 of the Income Tox Act 1961? UIn the facts and circumstances of the case, uhetherthe Tibunal (ITAT) ts correct in law in deleting thethe Tibunal (ITAT) ts correct in law in deleting the UB,J & DT.CSL,JLT.7'.4.No.61 of 2022LT.7'.4.No.61 of 2022 penaltA under Section 271D/271E of the Income TaxAct 1961 uhen the Addl. Commissioner of Inconte Taxu)as empouered to inttiate penalta regardless of thedirections under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act1961?"directions under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act1961?" 4. We may mention that respondent/ assessee wasassessed by the assessing officer for the assessment year 2OO7-08 by the assessment order dated 25.03.2013 under Section143(3) read with Section 1534, of the Act. Vide the saidassessment order, though the total income was assessed atRs.6,74,681.00, the assessing officer noted that assessee hadagricultural income of Rs.1,26,000.00. While tax payable urasassessed at Rs. 1,73,404.00, in view of the tax a-lready paid, anamount of Rs.10,659.00 was determined as refr-rndable. 5. 5. The aforesaid order of assessment \1,as revised b-r,the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Hl,derabadunder Section 263 of the Act. Vide order dated 25.03.2015, therevisional authority noted that there were discrepanciesregarding claim of agricultural income and violation of theprovisions under Section 26955/269T of the Act. No enquirywas made by the assessing officer. Accordingly, the assessment l \ I \JB,J & Dr'CSL'JLT.T.A.No.61 [of 2022] order was [set ][aside ][and ][the ][assessing ][officer ][was directed ][to]re.dotheassessmentaftermakingdetailedenquiriesandinvestigation. 6. This revisional [order dated 25'03'2O15 was ][appealed]against by [the ][respondent/ ][assessee ][before ][the Tribunal ][along]with identical [appeals ][for other ][assessment ][years'] 7. In the meanwhile, [based on ][the revisional ][order' ][the]assessing [officer ][passed ][fresh order ][imposing penalty, ][which]was confirmed [by the first ][appellate ][authority ][i'e'']Commissioner [of ][lncome ][Tax ][(Appeals)' ][Against ][such]confirmation [of penalty, ][respondent/ ][assessee ][preferred ][further]appeal before [the ][Tribunal'] 8We find that Tribunal [allowed ][the ][appeal ][filed ][by ][the]order [dated]respondent/ [assessee ][against ][the ][revisionai]The directions25.03.2015 [uid.e ][the ][order dated ][05'08'2015']issued by [the revisional ][authority ][were reversed'] g. In so far the [appeal ][against penalty ][is ][concerned']Tribunal uidetrre [impugned order ][dated ][08'06'2021 ][noted ][that]a co-ordinate [bench uide ][ordet ][dated ][05'08'2015 had ][reversed] \ ) UB,J & DT.CSL,JI.T.T.A.No.61 of 2022 the directions of the revisional authority issued under Section263 of the Act. Since the very foundation for ler,y of penalt],was removed, there was no question of imposition of penalty.In the circumstances, the order imposing penalty of theassessing officer as confirmed by the first appellate authoritvwas set aside. g. In so far the [appeal ][against penalty ][is ][concerned']Tribunal uidetrre [impugned order ][dated ][08'06'2021 ][noted ][that]a co-ordinate [bench uide ][ordet ][dated ][05'08'2015 had ][reversed] \ ) UB,J & DT.CSL,JI.T.T.A.No.61 of 2022 the directions of the revisional authority issued under Section263 of the Act. Since the very foundation for ler,y of penalt],was removed, there was no question of imposition of penalty.In the circumstances, the order imposing penalty of theassessing officer as confirmed by the first appellate authoritvwas set aside. 10. Thus, on due consideration, we do not find any erroror infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal. That apart, noquestion of law, much less any substantial question of laur, canbe said to have arisen from the order of the Tribunal. Theappeai is without merit and is accordingly dismissed. Hor,vever,there shal1 be no order as to costs. 1 1. As a sequel, miscellaneous dpplications pending, ifany, in this appeal, shall stand closed. ^ ^ _., SD/-K.SRINIVASA JOINT /ffRUE SECTION To, Bencn A , 1. The Registrar, [lncome ][Tax ][Appellale ][Tribunal' ][Hyderabad] Hvderabad2. Th"'C""mri;ioner Th"'C""mri;ioner [[of ][lncome Tax ]][[lncome Tax ]][(Appeals)-ll HYd1lltP"!] 2. Th"'C""mri;ioner Th"'C""mri;ioner [[of ][lncome Tax ]][[lncome Tax ]]3 . The [Deputy ][Commissioner ][oi ][rnio-d ][i"*' ][Central Circle-Z. Hvderabad]; cj;";ii"'dni [e Nannsr^"lHA ][sARMA Advocate IoPUC]]3 . The [Deputy ][Commissioner ][oi ][rnio-d ][i"*' ][Central Circle-Z. Hvderabad]; cj;";ii"'dni [e Nannsr^"lHA ][sARMA Advocate IoPUC]] 5. Two [CoPies] 6. One One SPare [[CoPY]] 6. One One SPare [[CoPY]]MI\'1A\[.P] HIGH COURT DATED:03/0312022 .-:--:\t\E If ,. \(.ORDERtvlTTA.No.61 of 2022Io[ 5 [?[2?].I)\r)t,DESPi:t ct\Uv" DISMISSING ITTAa)//nt