THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 vs. M/S BHAGWATI BANQUETS AND HOTELS LTD

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/472/2018HC GujaratGJHC24026053201809 May 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed income. The ITAT noted that the service tax payments were made after the due date for filing the return of income, and the omission of the payment date in the tax audit report was due to an inadvertent mistake. The assessee had rectified this by claiming the deduction in the succeeding assessment year 2008-09 through a revised return. Furthermore, concerning brought forward unabsorbed losses/depreciation, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that no inaccurate particulars were furnished as both the returned and assessed losses of earlier years were available on record. Consequently, the Tribunal found no error in the decision of the CIT(A) to delete the penalty. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue is in appeal against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT) order dated November 13, 2017. The appeal concerns the deletion of a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT observed that the assessee, M/s Bhagwati Banquets and Hotels Ltd., had furnished details showing service tax payments were made after the due date for filing the return of income. The ITAT noted that while necessary details were in the tax audit report, the payment date was inadvertently left blank. The assessee claimed the deduction in the succeeding assessment year 2008-09 via a revised return. Regarding brought forward unabsorbed losses/depreciation, the assessee contended no inaccurate particulars were furnished as both returned and assessed losses were on record. The ITAT found no error in the CIT(A)'s decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contentions: - The assessee argued that service tax payments were made after the due date for filing the return of income, and the omission of the payment date in the tax audit report was an inadvertent mistake. The deduction was claimed in the succeeding assessment year 2008-09 through a revised return. - Regarding brought forward unabsorbed losses/depreciation, the assessee contended that inaccurate particulars were not furnished because both the returned and assessed losses of earlier years were part of the assessment record. Revenue's Contentions: - The Revenue's appeal implies disagreement with the ITAT's deletion of the penalty, suggesting that the assessee's actions constituted furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income, warranting the penalty.

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/472/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 472 of 2018 ========================================================== THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 Versus M/S BHAGWATI BANQUETS AND HOTELS LTD ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA Date : 09/05/2018

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

1.

The Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of   the   Income   Tax   Appellate   Tribunal   dated 13.11.2017   raising   the   following   substantial question of law for our consideration; Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act ?

2.

The issue pertains to penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which the Tribunal deleted making the following observations; “6. We have heard both the sides and perused C/TAXAP/472/2018 ORDER the   material   on   record.   The   assessee   has furnished the details showing that payment of these service tax was made after the due date for filing the return of income. We observe that the necessary details were furnished in the tax audit report but the date of payment was   left   blank   in   the   audit   report   by inadvertent   mistake   and   the   assessee   has claimed deduction of the said amount in the succeeding   assessment   year   2008­09   in   the revised   return   filed.   Regarding   brought forward unabsorbed losses / depreciation, the ld. Counsel has submitted that assessee has not furnished inaccurate particulars as both the returned losses and the assessed losses of earlier years were part of the assessment record. After considering the facts as above and the findings of the ld. CIT(A) we observe that   it   cannot   be   said   that   assessee   has furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed income, therefore, we do not find any error in   the   decision   of   the   ld.   CIT(A). Accordingly,   the   appeal   of   the   revenue   is dismissed.”

3.

In brief, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that   the   assessee   had   not   given   inaccurate particulars of the income and had filed revised Return   to   correct   the   inadvertent   mistake.   No question of law arises. Hence, the Tax Appeal is dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J) PRAVIN KARUNAN

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 →