THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.COCHIN WINES

PDF · subscribers
ITA/86/2002HC KeralaKLHC01020909200206 February 2008Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the contention of the Revenue was unsustainable. The clear finding of the Tribunal was that the assessee's case of having no income was substantially established by the judgment of the High Court in the assessee's own sales tax cases. In those cases, the High Court had upheld the Sales Tax Tribunal's order which found that the sale price of liquor effected by the assessee was less than the cost price. In light of this, and considering the variation in the estimation of income between the Assessing Officer and the higher authorities including the Tribunal, the Tribunal rightly held that there was no concealment of any income or material particulars, which would warrant the penalty procedure under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The court found no question of law arising from the orders of the Tribunal and therefore dismissed the appeals.

What were the facts?

The appeals by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) challenge orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which cancelled penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee, M/s. Cochin Wines, was in the liquor business. For assessment years 1982-83 to 1984-85, the Assessing Officer estimated income based on sales turnover due to non-production of accounts. The ITAT reduced the estimated income from 2% to 0.45%, 0.55%, and 0.7% for the respective years. The Revenue contended that since income was estimated and sustained, there was concealment. The ITAT found that the assessee's claim of no income was substantially established by a High Court judgment in sales tax cases, which held that the sale price of liquor was less than the cost price. The ITAT concluded that variations in income estimation did not warrant penalty.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when income was estimated and sustained up to the Tribunal's level, indicating concealment of income. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the High Court's finding in its own sales tax cases, establishing that the sale price of liquor was less than the cost price, supported its claim of no taxable income. Therefore, no concealment of income occurred. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that since the assessee declared nil income and positive income was estimated and sustained by higher authorities, there was concealment of income to that extent, warranting penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Revenue relied on the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sree Krishna Trading Co. (253 ITR 645).

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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 ITA.No. 86 of 2002() -------------------- ITA.618/1996 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... : APPELLANT/APPELLANT. ------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOI(TAXES) SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT. ------------------------ M/S.COCHIN WINES, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2008, ALONG WITH ITA 141 & 149/2002, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N. Ramachandran Nair & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I.T.A.NOs.86, 141 & 149 of 2002 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008.

JUDGMENT C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard learned Senior counsel appearing for the Revenue and learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee.

2.

The orders under challenge are issued by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), cancelling penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The respondent assessee was engaged in liquor business. Since the books of accounts were not produced, income was estimated based on sales turnover. We find that income estimated at 2% of the sales turnover was reduced by the Tribunal and sustained for the years 1982-83 to 1984-85, to 0.45%, 0.55% and 0.7% respectively. Learned counsel for the Revenue contended that since the assessee declared nil income and positive income is estimated and sustained up to the Tribunal's level, there is concealment of income to that extent. We are unable to uphold the contention of the Revenue, because the clear cut finding of the Tribunal is that the assessee's case that there was no income, stands established -2- substantially by the judgment of this court in the sales tax cases in assessee's own case, wherein this court upheld the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal holding that sale price of liquor effected by the assessee is less than the cost price. In this view of the matter and in view of the variation in the estimation of income between the assessing officer and the higher authorities including the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that there is no concealment of any income or material particulars, warranting penalty procedure under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Even though the learned counsel for the Revenue cited the decision of this court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sree Krishna Trading Co. (253 ITR 645), we do not think any interference is called for on the findings recorded by the Tribunal. We do not find any question of law arising from the orders of the Tribunal.

The appeal is therefore dismissed. (C.N. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ -3- C.N. Ramachandran Nair & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I.T.A. Nos.86, 141 & 149/2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 6th February, 2008.

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 →