Commissioner of Income-tax-XVIII, Delhi v. Bank of Nova Scotia - 2016-LL-0107-1

Citation	2016-LL-0107-1
Appellant Name	Commissioner of Income-tax-XVIII, Delhi
Respondent Name	Bank of Nova Scotia
Court	SUPREME COURT
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	07/01/2016
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	substantial question of law • compensatory interest
Bot Summary:	The short issue pertains to the assessment of penalty under Section 271-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Against the order of Assessing Officer, the respondent took up the matter in appeal and the Commissioner of Income Tax deleted the levy of penalty. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 31.03.2006 entered the following findings: 11.We have carefully considered the rival submissions. In the instant case we are not dealing with collection of tax u/s 201(1) or compensatory interest u/s 201(1A). Respectfully following the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the decision of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Television Eighteen India Ltd., we allow the assessee's appeal and cancel the penalty as levied u/s 271-C. 3. Being aggrieved, the Revenue took up the matter before the High Court of Delhi against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. On facts, we are convinced that there is no substantial question of law, the facts and law having properly and correctly been assessed and approached by the Commissioner of Income Tax as well as by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

NON-REPORTABLE IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1704 OF 2008 COMMR.OF INCOME TAX-XVIII, APPELLANT DELHI VERSUS BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA RESPONDENT JUDGMENT KURIAN, J. 1. short issue pertains to assessment of penalty under Section 271-C of Income Tax Act, 1961. Against order of Assessing Officer, respondent took up matter in appeal and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted levy of penalty. 2. matter was pursued by Revenue before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 31.03.2006 entered following findings: 11..We have carefully considered rival submissions. In instant case we are not dealing with collection of tax u/s 201(1) or compensatory interest u/s 201(1A). case of assessee is that these amounts have already been paid so as to end dispute with Revenue. In present appeals we are concerned with levy of 1 Page 1 penalty u/s 271-C for which it is necessary to establish that there was contumacious conduct on part of assessee. We find that on similar facts Hon'ble Delhi High Court have deleted levy of penalty u/s 271-C in cae of M/s. Itochu Corporation, reported in 268 ITR 172 (Del) and in case of CIT Vs. Mitsui & Company Ltd. reported in 272 ITR 545. Respectfully following aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and decision of ITAT, Delhi in case of Television Eighteen India Ltd., we allow assessee's appeal and cancel penalty as levied u/s 271-C. 3. Being aggrieved, Revenue took up matter before High Court of Delhi against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. High Court rejected appeal only on ground that no substantial question of law arises in matter. 4. On facts, we are convinced that there is no substantial question of law, facts and law having properly and correctly been assessed and approached by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Thus, we see no merits in appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. J. (KURIAN JOSEPH) J. (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN) New Delhi; January 07, 2016 2 Page 2 Commissioner of Income-tax-XVIII, Delhi v. Bank of Nova Scotia

Metadata

Judgment