THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. R.ANBUVEL RAJAN

Mrs.R.Hemalatha, the learned Senior Standing Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme in Mak Data P. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-II reported in [2013 38 taxmann.com 448(SC)] and it is submitted that in cases where the assessee makes a voluntary disclosure to buy peace with the department and to avoid litigation and to bring about amicable settlement, cannot be a fact to release the assessee from the mischief of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Reliance was also placed on the decision of this Court in Sundaram Finance Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Co. Circle VI(4), Chennai, reported in [(2018) 93 taxmann.com 250 3/8 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.856 of 2019 (Madras)] and challenging the said order, the assessee therein (Sundaram Finance Ltd.,) have preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court and the same was dismissed, as reported in [(2018) 99 taxmann.com 152 (SC)]. Reliance was also placed on the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S.I.Paripushpam [(2001) 118 Taxman.844 (Mad)] and the decision in the case of K.P.Madhusudanan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [(2001) 118 Taxman 324 (SC)]. The decision in the case of Mak Data was rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 30.12.2013, i.e., much after the impugned decision of the Tribunal dated 21.12.2012. 6. Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel is right in her submission that the Court has to take note of law prevailing as on date, and the law relied on in Mak Data case if applied to the case on hand, then the order of the Tribunal calls for interference. 7. We have perused the reasons assigned in the impugned order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal took note of the decision of the Hon'ble 4/8 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.856 of 2019 Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd., Vs. State of Orissa, reported in [1972] 83 ITR 26; and the decision of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Geetha Ramakrishna Mills P. Ltd., in [2007] 288 ITR 489 (Mad). Thus, the decisions rendered for preposition is that for an order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of quasi- criminal proceedings and the penalty will not ordinarily be imposed, unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. No doubt at that relevant point of time, the law on the subject was as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd., Vs. State of Orissa. On facts, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal held in favour of the assessee by examining his conduct. The assessment was under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Tribunal, on facts, found that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings, brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer, the advance amounts received. This was taken note of and the assessment was completed and the case on hand is not the case where the assessment was re-opened under Section 147 of the Act. On taking note of the factual position, the CIT(A) exercised its discretion and granted relief to 5/8 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.856 of 2019 the assessee. The factual situation was examined by the Tribunal and it came to a conclusion that the CIT(A) was right in deleting the penalty. With regard to the non-inclusion of Rs.22 lakhs in the closing stock, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for proper verification and fresh adjudication as per law. Thus, taking into consideration that the entire issue before us is factual, we decline to exercise our jurisdiction under Section 260-A of the Act, as we are not expected to examine the correctness of the order of the Tribunal, as being a third Appellate Authority. 8. For the above reasons, we do not find any questions of law, much less the substantial questions of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this Tax Case Appeal is dismissed and the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai, dated 18.07.2019, passed in ITA.No.2099/Chny/2017, is hereby confirmed. No costs. (T.S.S.,J) (V.B.S.,J)