Madhya Pradesh H.C : What we find therein is that the issue raised in appeal relates to imposition of penalty on the assessee for the alleged concealment in the year in question

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Indore Bench

CIT vs. S.V. Electricals (P) Ltd.

Section 260A, 271(1)(c)

Asst. Year 1992-93

A.M. Sapre & Ashok Kumar Tiwari, JJ.

IT Appeal No. 5 of 2001

3rd January, 2005

Counsel Appeared :

R.L. Jain with Ku. V. Mandlik, for the Revenue : None, for the Assessee

ORDER

A.M. Sapre, J. :

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue (CIT) under s. 260A of the IT Act against an order dt. 21st Aug., 2000, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in ITA Nos. 414 and 599/Ind/1996. This appeal was admitted for final hearing by passing following order on 17th Jan., 2001 : “17th Jan., 2001— Shri R.L. Jain for the appellant. Heard on admission. ITA is admitted on the question raised in the appeal memo. Issue notice to the other side on payment of P.F. within a week. (R.D. Vyas, J.) (Shambhoo Singh, J.)” Heard Shri R.L. Jain, learned senior counsel with Ku. V. Mandlik, learned counsel for the Revenue. None for the assessee.

We have seen and perused the memo of appeal. What we find therein is that the issue raised in appeal relates to imposition of penalty on the assessee for the alleged concealment in the year in question. The penalty imposed by AO was set aside by CIT(A) and later order of CIT(A) was upheld by Tribunal in an appeal filed by Revenue. It is against this order of Tribunal which resulted in upholding of the order of CIT(A) which is impugned by the Revenue in this appeal.

In our opinion, the Tribunal seems to be right in upholding the order of CIT(A). When the assessee surrendered their full income, there was no question of any concealment on their part. This was one of the factors which weighed in the mind of CIT(A) in setting aside of the penalty imposed by the AO. In substance, there was no deliberate intention to evade payment of lawful tax by indulging in concealment of true income. When the disclosure was total, though at a later stage, the authorities in their discretion did not consider it proper to impose any penalty under s. 271(1) (c) ibid as a case of concealment. We do not consider it to be a fit case to upturn the concurrent finding of two appellate authorities on this issue as in our opinion, the appeal, though admitted does not involve any question of law, much less substantial question of law within the meaning of s. 260A of the Act. This aspect we can always look into at the time of final hearing by virtue of s. 260A(4) of the Act. We can frame any additional question of law though not framed but is noticed to have arisen or may hold that what is framed do not satisfy the requirement of s. 260A ibid at the instance of respondent. It is pursuant to this power, we have formed an opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal does not call for any interference as no question of law is involved in the appeal, calling any interference.

5. In this view of the matter, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.

[Citation : 274 ITR 334]

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security