Madras High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs M/S.Madras Security Printers ... on 25 January, 2021
TCA.No.66 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.01.2021
CORAM :
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
The Honourable Ms.Justice R.N.MANJULA
Tax Case Appeal No.66 of 2021
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
Corporate Circle-4(1),
Chennai - 600 034. ...Appellant
Vs
M/s.Madras Security Printers Pvt. Limited,
No.72, T.H.road,
Tondiarpet,
Chennai - 600 081.
PAN: AAGCM0599K ...Respondent
APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the
order dated 06.03.2019 made in ITA.No.1942/Chny/2016 on the file of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, for the assessment year
2010-11.
For Appellant: Mr.Karthik Ranganathan
Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent: Mr.N.Devanathan
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.66 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J)
This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directed against the order dated
06.03.2019 made in ITA.No.1942/Chny/2016 on the file of the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the
assessment year 2010-11.
2. The Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of
law for consideration:
"1. Whether on the facts and circumstances
of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was
right in deleting the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c)
by holding that the assessee had not made a false
claim and had not concealed income?
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of
the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was
right in holding that where an assessee being fully
aware of unambiguous provisions of explanation
to section 37(1), claimed an expenditure
prohibited by said explanation, will not attract the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.66 of 2021
penal provisions envisaged by section 271(1)(c)?
3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of
the case and in law, the Hon'ble Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal is right in deleting the penalty
levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act having placed
reliance on the Apex Court decision in the case of
CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd. [2010] 322
ITR 158 (SC) when the facts of the case of the
assessee is clearly distinguishable from that of
Reliance Petro Products Ltd?"
3. We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior
Standing Counsel for the Appellant – Revenue and Mr.N.Devanathan,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
4. The short question involved in this appeal is as to whether the
assessee is liable for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
5. The Assessing Officer levied penalty on the ground that the
assessee, with the knowledge that the expenditure of Rs.4,68,00,000/- is not
leviable, made a wrong claim of expenditure, which led to the inaccurate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.66 of 2021
particulars of income or reduction of income to the equivalent amount.
Therefore, the Assessing Officer rejected the argument of the assessee that
there was no withholding or hiding of the information and that they had
furnished all the particulars with reference to the transactions between them
and the contractee. Further, the assessee contended that the assessee, with
the knowledge that the expenditure is entitled to be claimed for the relevant
accounting year, has made a claim of the expenditure, though the relevant
information was produced. As noticed, this argument did not find favour by
the Assessing Officer.
6. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal
before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Chennai [CIT(A)],
which was allowed by order dated 07.03.2016. The CIT(A), after
considering the entire facts, held that mere omissions and wrong claims
would not amount to either concealment of income or furnishing of wrong
particulars. After referring to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [reported in 322 ITR
151], the penalty was set aside. The CIT(A) also referred to the decision of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.66 of 2021
this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Cholamandalam Investment & Finance
Co. Ltd. [reported in (2014) 364 ITR 0680].
7. As against the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue preferred an
appeal and the assessee has also preferred an appeal, because the quantum
appeal filed before the CIT(A) was dismissed against the assessee.
8. From the impugned order, we find that there was no
representation for the assessee before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed
the assessee's appeal and confirmed the findings of the CIT(A), so far as the
disallowance of Rs.4.68 crores done by the Assessing Officer. With regard
to the deletion of penalty, the Tribunal took note of the factual position and
affirmed the order passed by the CIT(A).
9. We find that the issue as to whether the assessee furnished
inaccurate particulars for examination of its correctness by the CIT(A) was
in depth analyzed by the Tribunal. Therefore, we find no good ground to
interfere with the said factual finding and also find that there are no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.66 of 2021
questions of law, much less substantial questions of law arising in this
appeal.
10. Mr.N.Devanathan, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-assessee submitted that the respondent has accepted that portion
of the order passed by the Tribunal confirming the disallowance. This is
recorded.
11. For the above reason, the Tax Case Appeal is dismissed as no
substantial questions of law arise for consideration. No costs.
(T.S.S.,J.) (R.N.M.,J.)
25.01.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking Judgment/Non speaking Judgment
hvk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.66 of 2021
To
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Madras 'B' Bench.
2. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
Corporate Circle-4(1),
Chennai - 600 034.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.66 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J
AND
R.N.MANJULA,J
hvk
TCA.No.66 of 2021
25.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
