COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. V. M. SALGAONKAR AND BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED

PDF · subscribers
TXA/46/2014HC BombayHCBM05000660201428 July 2014Author: U. V. BAKRE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RANJIT V. MORE2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that there was no error in the impugned order passed by the ITAT. The reasoning was based on a precedent set by the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd., reported in [2010] 317 ITR 543. This decision, which held that if taxes are paid under Section 115JB, concealment penalty cannot be levied under Section 271(1)(C) for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars under normal computation, was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court when a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against it was dismissed on 4th May, 2012 (reported in [2012] 21 Taxmann.com 184 (SC)). The ITAT had considered this precedent and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, a decision the High Court found to be correct. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The assessee is V. M. Salgaonkar and Brothers Private Limited. The dispute pertains to the assessment year(s) not explicitly stated in the provided text. The core of the dispute is whether a concealment penalty under Section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be levied for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars under normal computation when taxes have already been paid under Section 115JB of the Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that if taxes have been paid under Section 115JB, concealment penalty cannot be levied under Section 271(1)(C) for the concealment of income/furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding income under normal computation? (Question of law, turning on Sections 115JB and 271(1)(C)). Assessee's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the ITAT's decision, which was upheld, implies the assessee's position was that no penalty under Section 271(1)(C) is leviable if taxes under Section 115JB have been paid. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue contended that the ITAT erred in its decision. The judgment does not detail the specific arguments presented by the Revenue before the High Court, other than framing the question of law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115JB,Section 271(1)(C)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO. 46 OF 2014 COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ... Appellant Versus V. M. SALGAONKAR AND BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED ... Respondent Ms. Asha A. Desai, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. A. F. Diniz, Advocate for the respondent. Coram:- RANJIT MORE & U. V. BAKRE, JJ. Date:- 28th July, 2014 P.C.:- The Revenue, by filing this appeal, raised the following question of law for consideration of this Court : Under the facts and circumstances of the case whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that if the taxes have been paid under Section 115JB concealment penalty cannot be levied under Section 271(1)(C) for the concealment of income/furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding income under normal computation?

2.

The similar issue came up for consideration before Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Nalwa Sons

2 Investments Ltd., reported in [2010] 317 ITR 543. The Delhi High Court, ultimately, held that if the taxes are paid under Section 115JB, the concealment penalty cannot be levied under Section 271(1)(C) for the concealment of income/furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding income under normal computation. This decision of the Delhi High Court was carried to the Supreme Court by filing a SLP. However, the said SLP was dismissed by the Apex Court by order dated 4th May, 2012, reported in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd., [2012] 21 Taxmann.com 184 (SC).

3.

The ITAT considered this decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

4.

We do not find any error in the impugned order. The appeal, accordingly, is dismissed. U. V. BAKRE, J. RANJIT MORE, J. ssm.

More judgments on Section 115JB

All 5,494 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115JB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →