PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF IN vs. TNSTC COIMBATORE LTD.,

1 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 25.7.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.509 of 2019 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Coimbatore ...Appellant Vs M/s.TNSTC Coimbatore Ltd., Coimbatore-43. ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to set aside the order dated 15.2.2019 made in ITA.No.1519/Chny/2018 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for the assessment year 2013-14. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, SSC

Judgment was delivered by

T.S.Sivagnanam,J

We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant. http://www.judis.nic.in 2 2. This appeal, filed by the assessee, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), is directed against the order dated 15.2.2019 made in ITA.No.1519/Chny/2018 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench (for short, the Tribunal) for the assessment year 2013-14. 3. The Revenue has filed this appeal on the following substantial questions of law : “(i) Whether the Appellant Tribunal is correct in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act ? and (ii) Whether or not furnishing an expense claim in the return of income, which is more than the claim made in the annual report of the company, would amount to concealment of income or not?” 4. On a perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, we find that the Tribunal, after considering the fact that the respondent – assessee is a State Government undertaking and had to meet certain norms set by the State Government Audit Department while preparing the profit and loss account, held that while preparing the accounts of the assessee, there occurred certain differences, which, according to the assessee, were not deliberate with an intention to evade payment of tax. http://www.judis.nic.in 3 5. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products [reported in (2010 189 Taxmann 322] whereas the latest decision on the issue is in the case of Mak Data (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [reported in (2013) 38 Taxmann.com 448 (SC)] wherein it was held that voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from mischief of penal proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. After hearing the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue and perusing the materials placed before us, we find that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for brevity, the CIT(A)], in his order dated 19.2.2018, considered the entire factual position with specific reference to the fact that the assessee company is a wholly owned Tamil Nadu State Government undertaking. Furthermore, the CIT(A) noted that in the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee explained the reason for the difference and did not dispute the addition and held that the assessee never filed any inaccurate particulars. In addition to that, the CIT(A), on perusal of the facts, the annual report and the other details furnished by the assessee, held that the Assessing Officer was not in a position to establish that inaccurate particulars were filed by the assessee. These findings have been affirmed by the Tribunal in the impugned order. http://www.judis.nic.in 4 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS 7. Thus, we find that the entire matter revolves on the factual matrix and no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Consequently, we are not required to examine as to the applicability of the decision in the case of Mak Data (P) Ltd. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the above tax case appeal is dismissed. 25.7.2019 Internet: Yes To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench. TCA.No.509 of 2019 http://www.judis.nic.in