KUDOS CHEMIE LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHANDIGARH & ANR

ITA/134/2014HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01109258201416 January 20157 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings under Section 140A(3) read with Section 221 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against M/s Kudos Chemie Limited (the assessee) for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, due to non-deposit of taxes before filing returns. The AO imposed penalties of Rs. 66 lacs for AY 2008-09 and Rs. 65,71,450/- for AY 2009-10. The assessee appealed, and the CIT(Appeals) set aside the penalty, citing paucity of funds. The revenue appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT held the assessee liable for penalty but reduced it to Rs. 10 lacs for each assessment year, citing 'ends of justice' and 'liberal interpretation' without detailed reasoning. Both the assessee and revenue filed appeals against the ITAT's order.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the ITAT's reduction of penalty from Rs. 66 lacs to Rs. 10 lacs for each assessment year was arbitrary and lacked proper reasoning. The Court found that the ITAT's reliance on 'ends of justice' and 'liberal interpretation' without reference to specific facts or factors was insufficient for a judicial or quasi-judicial determination. The Court outlined relevant factors for determining penalty quantum, including the period of default, reasons for default, recurring nature of default, conduct of the assessee, and any extenuating circumstances. Since the ITAT failed to consider these factors and provide a perceptible process of reasoning, its order was set aside. The appeals were partly allowed, affirming the assessee's exigibility to penalty but remanding the quantum of penalty determination afresh to the ITAT for adjudication in accordance with law.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the quantum of penalty can be determined without referring to relevant factors and assigning adequate reasons (question of law, Section 221 of the Income Tax Act, 1961)? 2. Whether the quantum of penalty determined by the ITAT is perverse and arbitrary (question of law, Section 221 of the Income Tax Act, 1961)? 3. What factors should be considered while determining the quantum of penalty under Section 221 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (question of mixed law and fact)? Assessee's contentions: The assessee conceded its exigibility to penalty but argued that the quantum determined by the ITAT should be upheld, or if the matter was remitted, the possibility of a penalty lower than Rs. 10 lacs should be left open. Revenue's contentions: The revenue argued that while the ITAT rightly held the assessee liable for penalty, the reduction from Rs. 66 lacs to Rs. 10 lacs in each assessment year was arbitrary and lacked any reasoning, making the order perverse.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 140A(3),Section 221

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appeal No.134 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Income Tax Appeal No.134 of 2014 Date of Decision: 16.1.2015 M/s Kudos Chemie Limited, Chandigarh ..Appellant versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S.WALIA Present: Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rinku Dahiya, Advocate, for the appellant (in ITA Nos.134 and 135 of 2014) Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate, for the appellant (in ITA Nos.95 and 119 of 2014) Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate, for the respondents ( ITA Nos.134 and 135 of 2014) RAJIVE BHALLA, J (ORAL) By way of this order, we shall decide ITA Nos. 134, and 135 of 2014 filed by the assessee and ITA Nos. 95 and 119 of 2014 filed by the revenue. Both the assessee and the revenue are aggrieved by order dated 02.08.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short “the Tribunal”). KUMAR VIRENDER 2015.02.05 12:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh

Income Tax Appeal No.134 of 2014 2 Counsel for the assessee states that she has i

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 140A(3)

All 54 judgments and leading authorities on Section 140A(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →