K. Lakshmi, Puducherry V. ITO, Puducherry

ITA 2131/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4555 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 09-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Question of law; Reasonable cause
• Section: 260A

Judgement Text

9 ITA NOS.2130 & 213 1 /MDS/2016 (AY 2009-10 & 2010-11) K.LAKSHMI V. ITO DEFAULT UNDER LAW, AND UNEXPLAINED, WOULD NOT, IN O UR HUMBLE VIEW, BE APPROPRIATE OR LEGALLY VALID. WE, IN THIS REGARD, A LSO CONSIDER IT RELEVANT TO STATE THAT PROVING REASONABLE CAUSE, WHICH ONLY CAN SAVE PENALTY U/S. 271B (S. 273B), IS A MATTER OF FACT, AND NOT A QUESTION OF LAW, MUC H LESS A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW, ONLY QUA WHICH A DECISION U/S. 260A OF THE ACT OBTAINS. A D ECISION BY A NON-JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS, EVEN OTHERWISE, N OT A JUDICIALLY BINDING PRECEDENT FOR THE TRIBUNAL (REFER: SURESH DESAI & ASS. V. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 912 (DEL); GEOFFERY MANNERS & CO. LTD. V. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 695 (BOM); CIT V . THANE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY LTD. [1994] 206 ITR 797 (BOM); PATIL VIJAYAKUMAR & ORS. V. UNION OF INDIA [1985] 151 ITR 48 (KAR)). WE ARE THEREFORE, WITH RESPECT, UNABLE TO PERSUADE OURSELVES TO FOLLOW T HE SAID DECISIONS. 5. FOR THE REASONS AFORE-MENTIONED, WE CONSIDER THE PENALTY U/S. 271B FOR THE RELEVANT YEARS AS SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND, ACCORDING LY, NO REASON FOR INTERFERENCE. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MAY 18, 2017 AT CHENNAI . SD/- SD/- ( . ) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (SANJAY ARORA) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, /DATED, MAY 18, 2017. EDN ! ' #$%&' (&)$ /COPY TO: 1. ' *+ /APPELLANT 2. #,*+ /RESPONDENT 3. -$ ( ' )/CIT(A) 4. -$ /CIT 5. &./ #$0 /DR 6. / 1 2 /GF