The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-1 V. M/s. Radical Bio Organics Limited,

ITTA/323/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Hyderabad against M/s. Radical Bio Organics Limited concerning a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2013-14. The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal had earlier deleted the penalty, a decision which the Department challenged in the High Court. The Tribunal's decision was based on judicial precedents which the Department argued were under review. However, the High Court found no substantial question of law in the appeal and thus rejected it, affirming the Tribunal's decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 720128 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 17-08-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. Baisetty (398 ITR 88|), Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) [125 taxmann.com 253] (Bombay) (Full Bench)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SV RAMAKRISHNA
• Assessee Lawyers: J V PRASAD
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2013-14; Income Tax; Penalty; Tribunal Appeal
• Section: 271(1)(c); 260-4

Judgement Text

"t, l [ 3386 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY NqOME TA)( TRIBUNAL APPEAL No: 323 ot2O22 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260-4 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 arising out of the order of the lncome{ax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ,B , Hyderabad, in ITA No.1633/Hyd/18, for assessment Y eat 2013-14 dated O1-O7 -2021 preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-3, Hyderabad, Appeal No.0533/lTO-3(2)lHydlClT(A)116-11, dated:24-O}-2O11, preferred against the Order of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Hyderabad, GIR No.AAECR6026Q, dated 22-O3-2O1 6. Between: The Pr. Commissioner of lncome-tax-1, Hyderabad. ...Appellant AND M/s. Radical Bio Organics Limited, Sy.No.36 3484, Jakkepally, Yalal Mandat, Tandur, Vikarabad. (PAN- AAECR6026Q) ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: SRI J.V. PRASAD, SC FOR lT DEPARTMENT Counsel for the Respondent: SRI S.V. RAMA KRISHNA The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT I THE HON'tsLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY I.T.T.A. No. 323 of 2022 JUDGMENT: Heard Mr. J.V. Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax appearing for the appellant and perused the record. 2. The instant appeal has been fiIed by the Department assailing the order, dated Ol .O7 .2021 passed in I.T.A.No.l6.13/tli.'dl I B br ttre lncome-Tax Appellate Tribunal. lh dt:rabaC lJench 'lt'. I lvricrabad. 3. The primary challenge to the order of the Tribunal is so lar as deletion of the pcnaltl, imposed upon ttre respondcnrs under Section 271(1)(c) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ,the Act, I 96 1 '). Upon clue perusal of the impugnecl order dated O1.O7 .2021 passecl by the Tribunal, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal while allowing the appeal to the aloresaid extent has given justifiable eLnd rr_'asonable explan,ation and has also supported the reasons assigned in the light of r,he decision of the IIon'ble jt.rrisdictional I ligl-r Court,s decision in pr, CIT Vs. Baisetty (398 ITR 88| (Telangana & Apl and also another decision rendered by Lhe Bombay t{igh Court in Mohd. Farhan I i l -_E_._____.= -a- 2 A.Shaikh Vs. DCIT l2O2Ll [125 taxmann.com 253] (Bombay) (Full Benchl. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant, at this juncture, submits that so far as the judgments referred to by the Tribunal are concerned, the review is pending. Mainly, because a review has been preferred by itself, the same would not be suffrcient enough to hold that the hnding arrived at by the Tribunal was without any basis. 5. In view of the above, this Court does not find aly substantial question of law involved in the appeal and thus, the appeal fails and is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand ciosed Sd/. K. SRINIVASA JOINT REGIS //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The lncome'tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B ' Hyderabad 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-3, Hyderabad' 3. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Hyderabad. 4. One CC to SRI J.V. PRASAD, SC FOR lT DEPARTMENT [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI S.V. RAMA KRISHNA' Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies kam HlGH COURT DATED:1710812023 JUDGMENT !TTA.No.323 ot 2022 THE APPEAL IS REJECTED ./. 11 NI ztB t "