Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Chennai v. M/S.expo Freight Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-34

In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated : 02.1.2019 The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAMand The Honourable Mr.Justice N.SATHISH KUMAR Tax Case Appeal No.313 of 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chennai ...Appellant Vs M/s.Expo Freight Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-34...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the order dated 08.12.2016 in ITA.No.364/Mds/2014 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'B' Bench forthe assessment year 2009-10 against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II in ITA.No.1536/13-14dated 28.10.2013 against the penalty order dated 25.06.2012 ofthe Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle II(1),Chennai-34 dated 30.12.2011 for the Assessment year 2009-2010. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, SSC & Ms.K.G.Usharani, JSCFor Respondent :Mr.S.Sridhar Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J Heard the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant. 2. The appeal by the Revenue challenges the order passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which decided the issue infavour of the assessee. The Revenue has filed the appeal byraising the following substantial questions of law :“i. Whether, in the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal was right in deleting the penaltylevied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act,when the assessee declared the correctincome by filing a revised return pursuantto the survey action under Section 133A madeby the Department ? https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ii. Whether, in the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal was right in deleting the penaltylevied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Actrelying on the Apex Court's decision in thecase of Reliance Petro Products PrivateLimited, which is distinguishable on thefacts of the assessee's case ? And iii. Whether, in the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal was right in deleting the penaltylevied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act,when the decision of the Apex Court in thecase of M/s.MAK Data Private Limitedconfirmed the levy of penalty under Section271(1)(c) of the Act ?” 3. The Revenue seeks to withdraw the appeal on account oflow tax effect in terms of Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11.7.2018issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. 4. In the light of the above, the appeal is dismissed aswithdrawn and the substantial questions of law raised are leftopen. In the event the tax effect is above the threshold limitfixed in the said circular under exceptional clauses mentionedin the circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to make amention to this Court to restore the appeal to be heard anddecided on merits. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy//rs Sub Assistant RegistrarTo 1)The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench.2)The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle II(1), Chennai-34 3)The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II,Chennai-34+ 1 cc to Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate, SR No.360 TCA.No.313 of 2017PPA(CO)SSM(14/02/2019)