The Principal Commissioner Of Incometax-1, Coimbatore v. M/S.tnstc Coimbatore Ltd.,Coimbatore-43

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 25.7.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.509 of 2019 The Principal Commissioner of IncomeTax-1, Coimbatore ...Appellant Vs M/s.TNSTC Coimbatore Ltd.,Coimbatore-43....Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to setaside the order dated 15.2.2019 made in ITA.No.1519/Chny/2018 onthe file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Benchfor the assessment year 2013-14, as against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Coimbatore made in Appeal No.113/16-17 dated19/02/2018 as against the order of the Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Corporate Circle-2 Coimbatore dated 30/09/2016 inPAN-AAACC9092M for the Assessment Year 2013-14 as against theorder of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CorporateCircle-2, Coimbatore dated 26/03/2016 in PAN for theAssessment Year 2013-14. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, SSC Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal, filed by the assessee, under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), is directedagainst the order dated 15.2.2019 made in ITA.No.1519/Chny/2018on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A'Bench (for short, the Tribunal) for the assessment year 2013-14. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The Revenue has filed this appeal on the followingsubstantial questions of law :“(i) Whether the Appellant Tribunal iscorrect in cancelling the penalty leviedunder Section 271(1)(c) of the Income TaxAct ? and(ii) Whether or not furnishing an expenseclaim in the return of income, which is morethan the claim made in the annual report ofthe company, would amount to concealment ofincome or not?” 4. On a perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, we findthat the Tribunal, after considering the fact that therespondent – assessee is a State Government undertaking and hadto meet certain norms set by the State Government AuditDepartment while preparing the profit and loss account, heldthat while preparing the accounts of the assessee, thereoccurred certain differences, which, according to the assessee,were not deliberate with an intention to evade payment of tax. 5. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellantwould submit that the Tribunal placed reliance on the decisionof the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance PetroProducts [reported in (2010 189 Taxmann 322] whereas the latestdecision on the issue is in the case of Mak Data (P) Ltd. Vs.CIT [reported in (2013) 38 Taxmann.com 448 (SC)] wherein it washeld that voluntary disclosure does not release the assesseefrom mischief of penal proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) ofthe Act. 6. After hearing the learned Senior Standing Counsel for theRevenue and perusing the materials placed before us, we findthat the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for brevity, theCIT(A)], in his order dated 19.2.2018, considered the entirefactual position with specific reference to the fact that theassessee company is a wholly owned Tamil Nadu State Governmentundertaking. Furthermore, the CIT(A) noted that in the course ofassessment proceedings, the assessee explained the reason forthe difference and did not dispute the addition and held thatthe assessee never filed any inaccurate particulars. In additionto that, the CIT(A), on perusal of the facts, the annual reportand the other details furnished by the assessee, held that theAssessing Officer was not in a position to establish thatinaccurate particulars were filed by the assessee. Thesefindings have been affirmed by the Tribunal in the impugnedorder. 7. Thus, we find that the entire matter revolves on thefactual matrix and no substantial question of law arises forconsideration. Consequently, we are not required to examine asto the applicability of the decision in the case of Mak Data (P)Ltd. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the above tax case appeal isdismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarTo1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench.2.The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-I, Coimbatore.3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore.4.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore.+1cc to Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, Advocate Sr.63628TCA.No.509 of 2019 spd[co]srg 28/08/2019