Itta/733/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - I v. Agarvanshi Aluminium Ltd

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 733 of 2014 DATE: 31.12.2014 Between:The Commissioner of Income Tax-I,Hyderabad. … Appellant And M/s. Agarvanshi Aluminium Ltd.,Secunderabad. … Respondent This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 733 of 2014 Judgment:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred against the judgment andorder of the learned Tribunal dated 22.02.2013 in relation to theassessment year 2000-2001 on the following suggested questions oflaw: 1.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the caseand in law, the Hon’ble ITAT is correct in law in deleting thepenalty in the light of its finding that there was concealment ofincome ? 2.Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and inlaw, the Hon’ble ITAT is correct in concluding that no penaltyunder Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act can be leviedwhen the income is computed under Section 115JB of the IncomeTax Act ?law, the Hon’ble ITAT is correct in concluding that no penaltyunder Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act can be leviedwhen the income is computed under Section 115JB of the IncomeTax Act ? 3.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the caseand in law, the Hon’ble ITAT is correct in holding that there wasno normal computation of income in the assessee’s case andtherefore no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied withoutappreciating that the income under normal provisions of theI.T.Act was also computed in the assessment order by making anaddition of Rs.91,41,035/- ?and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT is correct in holding that there wasno normal computation of income in the assessee’s case andtherefore no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied withoutappreciating that the income under normal provisions of theI.T.Act was also computed in the assessment order by making anaddition of Rs.91,41,035/- ? We have heard Mr. J.V. Prasad, learned counsel for theRevenue and have gone through the impugned judgment and order ofthe learned Tribunal. It appears, the learned Tribunal, on fact, found that the pre-conditions for initiation of penalty proceedings were not fulfilled. In other words, the element of concealment of the income was not to befound. However, Mr. Prasad says that the Tribunal’s own finding isthat there is concealment of income. We think that the finding has tobe read as a whole and a portion thereof should not be picked up forrendering a decision. When we read the entire fact finding of thelearned Tribunal, we come to the conclusion that the finding wasreached by the learned Tribunal that there is no concealment ofincome. Therefore, the pre-conditions for initiation of penaltyproceedings are not satisfied. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shallalso stand closed. No costs. _________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ Date: 31stDecember, 2014 _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J pnb