SAMANTRAY STEEL INDU V. COMMNR.OF I.TAX,CTC

WP(C)/20080/2011

AI Insights

The petitioner challenged an order by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Arundoya Market, Cuttack, which imposed a minimum penalty of 100% for concealment of income. The petitioner had initially disclosed a profit of Rs.1,24,112 but later revised their return to include an income of Rs.16,24,112, which was accepted by the Income Tax Officer but led to a penalty by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioner argued that the delay in the revision decision, which took over 19 years, should affect the penalty. However, the court found no merit in this argument, citing precedents that allowed for jurisdiction to be assumed and cases to be disposed of on merits despite delays.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 725979 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income Tax –v- Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.; reported in [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC), Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. –v- Commissioner of Income-tax and another; reported in [2012] 348 ITR 306 (SC), Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. –v- Sanjiv Fabrics; reported in [2010] 35 VST 1 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Keywords: Concealment of income; Limitation Period; Penalty; Revision petition
• Section: 271(1)(c); 264; 264(6); 264(7)

Judgement Text

" 03. 18.12.2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.08.2010 (Annexure-5) passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Arundoya Market, Cuttack. 3. The main contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner before assessment was made had disclosed its income by filling revised return, which can be verified from its return referred to in the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Cuttack. The profit and loss account of the petitioner has been shown therein at Rs.16,24,112/-. Although the Income Tax Officer has accepted the same, but the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Assessment), Special Range, Bhubaneswar has issued notice to the petitioner under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1983-84 as at Annexure- 2 and ultimately minimum penalty of 100% was imposed on it vide his order 31.03.1989 under Annexure-2. Against the same, a revision was preferred by the petitioner under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, which came to be decided by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Cuttack by a reasoned and detailed order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax –v- Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.; reported in [2010] W.P.(C) No.20080 of 2011 2 322 ITR 158 (SC), Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. –v- Commissioner of Income-tax and another; reported in [2012] 348 ITR 306 (SC) and also Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. –v- Sanjiv Fabrics; reported in [2010] 35 VST 1 (SC). The petitioner raised the issue of limitation submitting that the appeal was decided after a long period, which is more than 19 years. The Commissioner of Income Tax has dealt with the matter of limitation elaborately, relevant portion of which reads as under: “The present proceedings u/s 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had been taken up and disposed off in accordance with the direction of the Hon’ble High Court in the above stated writ petition. As per the provision of section 264(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 an order u/s 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 shall be passed within 1 year from end of the financial year in which application for revision is filed implying that the assessee company having filed the revision petition u/s 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before the CIT, Bhubaneswar on 23.07.19890-the order u/s 264(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should have been disposed off by 31.03.1991. Ordinarily the CIT would not be enabled to dispose off such petition u/s 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 filed on 23.07.1089 in August, 2010. Since apparently there is no evidence of the Original petition to have been disposed off within the statutory period by 31.03.1991 to adjudicate such 264 petition after a lapse of about 19 years may ordinarily be not within the limitation prescribed u/s 264(6) of the Income Tax Act, 3 1961. However, in comparable case of proceedings u/s 12A the Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the case of Bhakti Vedanta Trust had held that in situations where proceedings have not been completed within the statutory fixed time period, subsequent authorities may assume jurisdiction and dispose of the case on merits. Further in accordance with the provision of section 264(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 an order under sub section (6) may be passed at any time in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order of Hon’ble ITAT/High Court or the Supreme Court.” 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has supported the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax and contended that no interference may be called for as minimum penalty was imposed on the petitioner. 7. We have no hesitation to say that the petitioner who had earlier shown a profit of Rs.1,24,112/-, had inadvertently omitted to show the income of Rs.16,24,112/-. Therefore, it is a clear case of concealment. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act reads as under: “271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income etc. (1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in the 4 course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person- (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income or.” 8. In that view of the matter, on facts itself, we are satisfied that it is a concealment. Therefore, we do not want to exercise the discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The judgment which is sought to be relied upon will not apply to the facts of the case in view of the conduct of the petitioner. 9. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. 10. Interim order dated 08.10.2012 passed in Misc. Case No.11432 of 2011 stands vacated. ……..………………… K.S. JHAVERI (CHIEF JUSTICE) ……..…………………… K.R. MOHAPATRA (JUDGE) bks/jm "