The Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Hyderabad v. Agarvanshi Aluminium Ltd
[Citation -2014-LL-1231-81]

Citation 2014-LL-1231-81
Appellant Name The Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Hyderabad
Respondent Name Agarvanshi Aluminium Ltd
Court HIGH COURT OF HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 31/12/2014
Assessment Year 2000-01
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags initiation of penalty proceedings • computation of income • concealment of income
Bot Summary: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ble ITAT is correct in law in deleting the penalty in the light of its finding that there was concealment of income 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ble ITAT is correct in concluding that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act can be levied when the income is computed under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ble ITAT is correct in holding that there was no normal computation of income in the assessee s case and therefore no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied without appreciating that the income under normal provisions of the I.T.Act was also computed in the assessment order by making an addition of Rs.91,41,035/- We have heard Mr. J.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the Revenue and have gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. It appears, the learned Tribunal, on fact, found that the pre- conditions for initiation of penalty proceedings were not fulfilled. In other words, the element of concealment of the income was not to be found. Mr. Prasad says that the Tribunal s own finding is that there is concealment of income. When we read the entire fact finding of the learned Tribunal, we come to the conclusion that the finding was reached by the learned Tribunal that there is no concealment of income.


THE HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 733 of 2014 DATE: 31.12.2014 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Hyderabad. Appellant And M/s. Agarvanshi Aluminium Ltd., Secunderabad. Respondent This Court made following: HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 733 of 2014 Judgment: (per Hon ble Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred against judgment and order of learned Tribunal dated 22.02.2013 in relation to assessment year 2000-2001 on following suggested questions of law: 1. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Hon ble ITAT is correct in law in deleting penalty in light of its finding that there was concealment of income ? 2. Whether, on facts and circumstances of case and in law, Hon ble ITAT is correct in concluding that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act can be levied when income is computed under Section 115JB of Income Tax Act ? 3. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Hon ble ITAT is correct in holding that there was no normal computation of income in assessee s case and therefore no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied without appreciating that income under normal provisions of I.T.Act was also computed in assessment order by making addition of Rs.91,41,035/- ? We have heard Mr. J.V. Prasad, learned counsel for Revenue and have gone through impugned judgment and order of learned Tribunal. It appears, learned Tribunal, on fact, found that pre- conditions for initiation of penalty proceedings were not fulfilled. In other words, element of concealment of income was not to be found. However, Mr. Prasad says that Tribunal s own finding is that there is concealment of income. We think that finding has to be read as whole and portion thereof should not be picked up for rendering decision. When we read entire fact finding of learned Tribunal, we come to conclusion that finding was reached by learned Tribunal that there is no concealment of income. Therefore, pre-conditions for initiation of penalty proceedings are not satisfied. appeal is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed. No costs. K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 31st December, 2014. Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Hyderabad v. Agarvanshi Aluminium Ltd
Report Error