PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 vs. SHREE MATANGI WOVEN SACK PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/796/2018HC GujaratGJHC24041052201809 July 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises in the present Tax Appeals. The Court noted that the findings recorded by the learned CIT(A), which were confirmed by the learned Tribunal, were based on the appreciation of evidence and material on record. The CIT(A) had provided cogent reasons for restricting the addition on account of estimated Net Profit from 20% to 0.5% of the total turnover. Since the decision of the lower appellate authorities was based on factual appreciation, the High Court found no legal infirmity to interfere. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax) is in appeal before the High Court of Gujarat against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had dismissed the Revenue's appeal, thereby upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The CIT(A) had restricted an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of estimated Net Profit from Rs. 59,31,200/- to Rs. 1,48,280/-. The AO had initially made an addition at 20% of the total turnover. The CIT(A) reduced this to 0.5% of the total turnover and also directed recalculation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on the reduced amount of concealed income. The assessment year in question is 2010-11.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in upholding the CIT(A)'s order restricting the addition made on account of estimation of Net Profit from Rs. 59,31,200/- to Rs. 1,48,280/-? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. The CIT(A), in its order confirmed by the Tribunal, had appreciated the material on record and given cogent reasons for restricting the addition from 20% to 0.5% of the total turnover. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue's contention, as presented through the proposed question of law, is that the ITAT erred in law and facts by upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition on account of estimated Net Profit. The Revenue implicitly argues that the reduction made by the CIT(A) was not justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
C/TAXAP/796/2018 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 796 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 797 of 2018 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE ====================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? ====================================== PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 Versus SHREE MATANGI WOVEN SACK PVT LTD ====================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the APPELLANT(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ====================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Date : 09/07/2018

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) [1.0] As common question of law and facts arise in both these Tax Appeals, they are decided and disposed of by this C/TAXAP/796/2018 JUDGMENT common judgment and order. [2.0] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad “B” Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) in ITA Nos.931 & 997/Ahd for the Assessment Year 2010-11 by which the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said Appeal preferred by the revenue and has confirmed the order passed by the learned CIT(A) restricting the addition made on account of estimation of Net Profit from Rs.59,31,200/- to Rs.1,48,280/-, revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeals with the following proposed question of law; “Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in upholding the CIT(A)’s order restricting the addition made on account of estimation of Net Profit from Rs.59,31,200/- to Rs.1,48,280/-? [3.0] Heard Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the learned Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.59,31,200/- and after making the addition on account of estimated Net Profit of the assessee at 20% of the total turnover subsequently the penalty of Rs.7,39,630/- was levied vide penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. On the quantum appeal preferred by the assessee, by giving cogent reasons and on appreciating the material on record, restricted the addition from 20% to 0.5% of the total turnover i.e. Rs.59,31,200/- to Rs.1,48,280/- and directed the learned Assessing Officer to recalculate the penalty on the correct C/TAXAP/796/2018 JUDGMENT amount of concealed income. Feeling

aggrieved

and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned CIT(A) in quantum appeal restricting the addition made on account of estimation from 20% to 0.5% and the order passed by the learned CIT(A) restricting the penalty, revenue preferred Appeals before the learned Tribunal, being ITA Nos.931 & 997/Ahd. By the impugned common judgment and order, learned Tribunal has dismissed the aforesaid Appeal. Hence, revenue is before this Court by way of present Tax Appeals. [4.0]

We have heard Mrs Mauna Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue. On considering the order passed by the learned CIT(A), which came to be confirmed by the learned Tribunal restricting the addition made on account of estimation of 20% to 0.5%, learned CIT(A) has given cogent reasons and on appreciation of material on record has restricted the addition on account of estimated Net Profit of the assessee at 0.5% of the total turnover. The findings recorded by the learned CIT(A) confirmed by the learned Tribunal are on appreciation of evidence, and therefore, it cannot be said that any question of law arises in the present Tax Appeals as proposed by the revenue. Under the circumstances and in view of the above no substantial question of law arises in the present Tax Appeals and both the Tax Appeals deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. (M.R. SHAH, J.) (A.Y. KOGJE, J.) siji

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →