2005-VIL-366-MP-DT

Equivalent Citation: [2005] 274 ITR 334, 155 TAXMANN 158

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Date: 03.01.2005

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Vs

SV. ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD.

BENCH

Judge(s)  : A. M. SAPRE., ASHOK KUMAR TIWARI.

JUDGMENT

The judgment of the court was delivered by

A. M. Sapre J.- This is an appeal filed by the Revenue (Commissioner of Income-tax) under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against an order dated August 21, 2000, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in I.T.A. No. 414 and 599/Ind of 1996. This appeal was admitted for final hearing by passing the following order on January 17, 2001:

"17-01-2001:

Shri R. L. Jain for the appellant.

Heard on admission.

I.T.A is admitted on the question raised in the appeal memo.

Issue notice to the other side on payment of P.F. within a week. (R. D. Vyas J.) and (Shambhoo Singh J.)"

Heard Shri R. L. Jain, learned senior counsel with Ku V. Mandlik, learned counsel for the Revenue. None for the assessee.

We have seen and perused the memo of appeal. What we find therein is that the issue raised in appeal relates to imposition of penalty on the assessee for the alleged concealment in the year in question. The penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was set aside by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and a latter order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was upheld by the Tribunal in an appeal filed by the Revenue. It is against this order of the Tribunal which resulted in upholding of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which is impugned by the Revenue in this appeal.

In our opinion, the Tribunal seems to be right in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). When the assessees surrendered their full income, there was no question of any concealment on their part. This was one of the factors which weighed in the mind of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in setting aside the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. In substance, there was no deliberate intention to evade payment of lawful tax by indulging in concealment of true income. When the disclosure was total though at a later stage, the authorities in their discretion did not consider it proper to impose any penalty under section 271(1)(c) ibid as a case of concealment. We do not consider it to be a fit case to upturn the concurrent finding of the two appellate authorities on this issue as in our opinion, the appeal though admitted does not involve any question of law much less a substantial question of law within the meaning of section 260A of the Act. This aspect we can always look into at the time of final hearing by virtue of section 260A(4) of the Act. We can frame any additional question of law though not framed but is noticed to have arisen or may hold that what is framed does not satisfy the requirement of section 260A ibid at the instance of the respondent. It is pursuant to this power, we have formed an opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal does not call for any interference as no question of law is involved in the appeal, calling any interference.

In this view of the matter, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

No costs.

 

DISCLAIMER: Though all efforts have been made to reproduce the order accurately and correctly however the access, usage and circulation is subject to the condition that VATinfoline Multimedia is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake/error/omissions.