The Prinicipal Commissioner Of Incometax, Panaji v. New Era Sova Mine

Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NOS. 70, 69 OF 2018 & 6 OF 2019 TAX APPEAL NO. 70 OF 2018 The Prinicipal Commissioner of IncomeTax, Panaji. ….. Appellant. …..Respondent. V/s New Era Sova Mine. TAX APPEAL NO. 69 OF 2018 The Prinicipal Commissioner of IncomeTax, Panaji. V/s Tax, Panaji. ….. Appellant. V/s…..New Era Vaglar Mine.Respondent. TAX APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2019 The Prinicipal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji. ….. Appellant. V/sNew Era Keli Mine.…..Respondent. Ms. Amira Abdul Razaq, Standing Counsel for the Appellant. Mr. Nikhil Pai, Advocate for the Respondents. Coram : S.C. Gupte & Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ. Date : 18[th] June, 2019. P.C. :- These Income Tax Appeals challenge a Judgment and Orderof the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, which is acommon order passed in three connected appeals. 2 txas69,70-18,6-19dt.18.06.19 2.The subject matter of Appeals concerns penalty levied bythe Assessing Officer on the ground that the Assessees had not filedreturns within the due date. The Assessees were claimed to have filedreturns after a search was conducted in their premises under Section132 of the Income Tax Act. The Department's case was that but forsuch search, the income now offered to tax by the Assessees wouldnot have been so offered. The Tribunal has correctly observed in itsimpugned order that the penalty notices in these cases were notissued for any specific charge, that is to say, for concealment ofparticulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Whenthe matter was before the CIT (A), he referred to the decision ofKarnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. SSA's EmeraldMeadows (ITA No.380 of 2015 dated 23.11.2015). The Court hadheld that no notice could be issued under Section 274, read withSection 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, without indicating whichparticular limb of Section 271(1)(c) was invoked for initiating thepenalty proceedings. The Court took the view that the matter wascovered by an earlier decision of a Division Bench of that Court anddid not involve any substantial question of law. The matter,thereafter, went in an SLP before the Supreme Court, who did notfind any merit in the petition. The Tribunal also noticed that thejurisdictional High Court in the case of 392 ITR 4 had also taken thesame view. 3.The Appeals, accordingly, do not involve any substantialquestion of law and do not merit admission. The Appeals are,accordingly, dismissed. Prithviraj K. Chavan, J. S.C. Gupte, J.