PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1 vs. BIOTECH VISIONCARE P. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/70/2018HC GujaratGJHC24008416201828 February 2018Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no question of law arises from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had deleted the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. While the quantum additions were under appeal by the Revenue and admitted by the High Court, the Tribunal had also relied on the ground that the assessee had not concealed any particulars of income and had provided all necessary information. The High Court, in its oral order, found no substantial question of law to entertain the appeal. Therefore, the Tax Appeal was dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, is in appeal against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated April 7, 2017. The appeal concerns the deletion of a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This penalty was related to deductions claimed under Section 80IB and the late payment of employees' contribution to the Provident Fund (PF). The Assessing Officer had imposed the penalty, which was subsequently deleted by the CIT(Appeals) and confirmed by the ITAT. The ITAT's decision was based on the fact that the quantum additions were deleted. However, the ITAT also noted that the assessee had not concealed any particulars of income and had provided all relevant information.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts by deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning deductions under Section 80IB and late payment of employees' contribution to PF? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the ITAT's reasoning, as reflected in the judgment, indicates that the deletion of the penalty was based on the fact that the quantum additions were deleted and that the assessee had not concealed any particulars of income. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contends that the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts by deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Revenue's appeal is admitted by the High Court concerning the quantum additions, implying that the underlying additions, which led to the penalty, are still under consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 80IB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/70/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 70 of 2018 ========================================================== PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1 Versus BIOTECH VISIONCARE P. LTD. ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA

Date : 28/02/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. Revenue is in appeal against the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 07.04.2017 raising following question for our consideration: “Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts by deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the deduction u/s. 80IB and late payment of Employees' contribution to PF?” 2. The issue pertains to penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act which came to be deleted by the CIT(Appeals) which order was confirmed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal proceeded on the footing that the quantum additions were deleted. Had this been the only ground cited by the Tribunal we would have examined the issue further since we are informed that against the quantum Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/70/2018 ORDER additions the Revenue is in appeal and such appeal is admitted by the High Court. However, we notice that the Tribunal also considered the permissibility of imposing penalty even if the additions are sustained. In other words, the Tribunal cited additional reason that the assessee had not concealed any particulars of income and all particulars are provided. 3. No question of law arises. Tax Appeal is dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J.) (B.N. KARIA, J.) JYOTI V. JANI Page 2 of 2

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →