SMT. NEETA ANTO vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)

ITA/61/2016HC KeralaKLHC01026860201626 May 2016Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Smt. Neeta Anto, filed an appeal before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench, in ITA No. 431/2014. The ITAT's order confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This penalty was imposed for delayed payment of tax deducted at source (TDS) under Sections 194C, 194-I, and 194J of the Act. The assessment year in question is 2012-2013, as indicated by the penalty order dated 26.9.2013. The appeal before the High Court was filed against the ITAT's order dated 06.03.2015.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal filed by the assessee lacked substance. The Court noted that the assessee's representative had admitted before the ITAT that the issue raised was covered against the assessee by the Tribunal's prior order in the case of M/s Classic Concepts Home India (P) Ltd. In light of this admission, the High Court found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order. Consequently, the appeal was rejected. The operative direction was the rejection of the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain an appeal against the ITAT's order when the assessee's representative admitted before the Tribunal that the issue was covered against the assessee by a previous ITAT decision. The assessee argued that there was a substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order. The revenue contended that the assessee's representative had conceded the issue before the ITAT, relying on the Tribunal's own decision in the case of M/s Classic Concepts Home India (P) Ltd. in ITA Nos. 469-472/Coch/2014 dated 9.1.2015. Therefore, the revenue argued that no substantial question of law arises for consideration by the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271C,Section 194C,Section 194-I,Section 194J

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU THUR AY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2016/5TH JYAISHTA, 1938 ITA.No. 61 of 2016 () ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 431/2014 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 06-03-2015 APPELLANT/APPELLANT: -------------------- SMT. NEETA ANTO 412/934, FIRST FLOOR, PULLEPPADY ROAD, KOCHI

BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.R.SREEJITH KUM.SOUMYA PRAKASH KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY RESPONDENT: ----------- THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), C.R.BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 018. BY SC SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A-OF THE ORDER OF PENALTY FOR THE YEAR 2012-2013 DATED 26.9.2013 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT. ANNEXURE B-OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 30.7.2014. ANNEXURE C-OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH D

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 271C

All 772 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →