JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, PANAJI vs. M/S V. M. SALGAOCAR & BROTHERS (P) LTD., VASCO

PDF · subscribers
ITA 272/PAN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Panaji10 August 2023AY 2006-07Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty due to a defective show cause notice. The assessee's appeal for deduction of cess was dismissed based on a retrospective legislative amendment.

What were the facts?

The appeals concerned penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and a deduction claim for cess. The penalty notice was found to be vague, and the deduction claim was rejected due to a retrospective amendment to Section 40(ii).

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is valid if the show cause notice fails to specify the limb of concealment or inaccurate particulars. Whether secondary and higher education cess is deductible as an expense under Section 40(ii) in light of retrospective amendments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3),Section 40(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH : PANAJI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI

Hearing: 09.08.2023Pronounced: 10.08.2023

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This Revenue ITA.No.272/ PAN./2019 [A.Y. 2006- 2007]; and that filed by the assessee i.e., ITA.No.284/ PAN./2019 [A.Y. 2012-2013], arise against the CIT(A), Panaji- 1, Panaji's separate orders in case no.ITA.CIT(A),PNJ- 1/10207/2014-15, dated 30.07.2019 and in case no.ITA.

1.

2 ITA.Nos.272 & 284/PAN./2019 CIT(A),PNJ-1/10944/2015-16, dated 27.09.2019, in proceedings under sec.271(1)(c) and under sec.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"); case-wise respectively.

Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

2.

Coming to the Revenue’s sole substantive grievance in it’s appeal ITA.No.272/ PAN./2019 that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.1,65,36,068/- imposed by the Assessing Officer, it emerges at the outset that the Assessing Officer’s corresponding penalty show cause notice dated 08.12.2011 issued to the taxpayer had nowhere specified or struck-off the relevant limb as to whether the latter had concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such an income, as the case may be.

3.

Faced with the situation, we quote hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s recent Full Bench landmark decision in Mohd. Farhan A.Shaikh Vs. ACIT 434 ITR 1 (Bom) that the above stated failure on the Assessing Officer’s part indeed vitiates the entire penal proceedings itself. We thus confirm the CIT(A)’s order in deleting the impugned penalty for this precise reason alone. Ordered accordingly.

4.

This Revenue’s appeal ITA.No.272/PAN./2019 is dismissed in above terms.

3 ITA.Nos.272 & 284/PAN./2019 5. Coming to the assessee’s appeal ITA.No.284/ PAN./2019 for assessment year 2012-2013, we note that it’s sole substantive ground seeks to claim deduction representing secondary and higher education cess on income tax paid for the relevant previous year in light of Sesa Goa Ltd., vs. JCIT [2020] 423 ITR 426 (Bom.) as well as Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., vs., JCIT [2019] 107 taxmann.com 484 (Raj.). We are afraid that much water has flown down the stream as the legislature has now amended sec.40(ii) by way of inserting Explanation 3 vide Finance Act, 2022 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2005 making it clear that the clinching statutory expression “tax” shall include and shall be deemed to have always included any surcharge or cess, by whatever name called, on such tax. That being the case, we reject the assessee’s vehement contentions in very terms. It’s appeal ITA.No.284/PAN./2019 fails. Ordered accordingly.

6.

No other ground or argument has been pressed before us.

7.

To sum-up, both these Revenue’s and assessee’s appeals ITA.No.272/PAN./2019 and ITA.No.284/PAN./2019 are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

4 ITA.Nos.272 & 284/PAN./2019 Order pronounced in the open court on 10.08.2023.

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 →