High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Indore Bench
CIT vs. Beta Nepthol Ltd
Section 260A, 271(1)(c)
Asst. Year 1989-90
A.M. Sapre & Ashok Kumar Tiwari, JJ.
IT Appeal No. 65 of 1999
5th August, 2004
Counsel Appeared :
R.L. Jain, for the Appellant
ORDER
A.M. Sapre, J. :
This is an appeal filed by the Revenue (IT Department) under s. 260A of the IT Act against an order, dt. 3rd March, 1999, passed by Tribunal in IT(SS)A No. 455/Ind/1995.
In short, the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether this appeal involves any substantial question of law as is required to be made out under s. 260A of the Act that being the prerequisite for admission of appeal. Heard Shri R.L. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused record of the case, we are of the opinion that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law for consideration in this appeal and that two questions proposed by the appellant (Revenue) do not satisfy the rigour of substantial question of law within the meaning of s. 260A of the Act.
The short question involved in this appeal is, whether CIT(A) and Tribunal were justified in setting aside of the penalty imposed by the AO on the assessee under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. In the opinion of both the authorities, i.e., CIT(A) and Tribunal, no case whatsoever is made out to invoke the provisions of s. 271(1)(c) and hence, the order of penalty passed by the AO was not sustainable. We concur with these findings and uphold it as in our opinion, it does not call for any interference in our second appellate jurisdiction conferred upon us under s. 260A of the Act.
It was a case where AO accepted the explanation offered by the assessee and did not impose any penalty whereas it confined only in respect of some items. The assessee had surrendered the items and paid the tax on the said items. The authorities, therefore, came to a conclusion that in such case no concealment of income as such arises within the meaning of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and hence, the question of penalty in such cases may not arise. This, in our opinion, does not involve any substantial question of law so as to meet the provisions of s. 260A of the Act for admitting any appeal.
In view of aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal, which in our opinion merits dismissal in limine. It is accordingly, dismissed in limine.
[Citation : 272 ITR 323]
