HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. Nos. 679, 680 & 681 of 2014 Date: 27.11.2014
ITTA.No.679 of 2014
Between:
Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Hyderabad.
… Appellant And M/s. Heman Fan Components Private Limited Hyderabad.
… Respondent This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. Nos. 679, 680 & 681 of 2014 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) All these matters are taken up together and are being disposed of by this Court by this common judgment.
These appeals are sought to be preferred and admitted against the common judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 18.06.2014 in relation to various assessment years on the following suggested question of law.
“In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in upholding the order of cancellation of penalty which was levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when there was a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by deliberate wrong claim of interest expenditure on borrowed funds?”
We have heard Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant, and gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal.
We find that the learned Tribunal following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Private Limited found that there is no concealment of income on the given facts and circumstance of the case and held that pre-condition for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were not satisfied as such action therefor does not and cannot arise.
In all these cases, the assessee has made a wrong claim of deduction of the same amount of income, but it was disclosed. Hence, it is clear that it is not a case of concealment of income. We therefore dismiss the appeals. No order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 27.11.2014 ES