Tax Appeal Nos. 828, 829, 830 and 852 of 2016. Case: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vadodara 2 Vs Sun Pharmaceutical Industries. Gujarat High Court

Case Number:Tax Appeal Nos. 828, 829, 830 and 852 of 2016
Party Name:Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vadodara 2 Vs Sun Pharmaceutical Industries
Counsel:For Appellant: K.M. Parikh, Advocate and For Respondents: S.N. Soparkar, Senior Counsel and B.S. Soparkar, Advocate
Judges:M.R. Shah and B.N. Karia, JJ.
Issue:Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 246, 246A, 253, 260A, 261, 263, 264, 271(1)(c), 274, 275(1)(A), 80IB
Judgement Date:March 21, 2017
Court:Gujarat High Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Judgment:

M.R. Shah, J.

  1. As common questions of law and facts arise in these group of Appeals and are with respect to the same assessee but for different Assessment Years, all these Appeals are disposed of by this common judgment and order.

    1.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (herein after referred to as "the ITAT") in ITA No. 179/Mum/2014 for the A.Y. 2004-2005 by which the learned ITAT has dismissed the said Appeal preferred by Revenue and has confirmed the order passed by the learned C.I.T.(A) deleting the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, Revenue has preferred Tax Appeal No. 828 of 2016 with the following proposed questions of law:

    "(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in law in deleting the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the issue of disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act relating to price paid by the for purchase of raw materials at low rate?

    (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in law in holding that "Since the addition on account of notional selling and distribution has been deleted in quantum proceedings, the penalty order passed with respect to such addition has no legs to stand", without appreciating that the issue involved has not attained finality, since the revenue's appeal against the order of ITAT Mumbai deleting quantum addition on the issue of selling and distribution expenses in the assessee's case for A.Y. 2004-2005 is pending for adjudication before Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai?

    (c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in law in holding that penalty is not leviable in respect of disallowance u/s. 80IB of the Act on account of raw material purchases, as it is merely a claim which is found to be not sustained in law, without appreciating that the A.O. had clearly established that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income liable for penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act?"

    1.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned ITAT in ITA No. 180/Mum/2014 for the A.Y. 2006-2007 by which the learned ITAT has dismissed the said Appeal preferred by the Revenue and has confirmed the order passed by the learned C.I.T.(A) deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, Revenue has preferred Tax Appeal No. 829 of 2016 with the following proposed questions of law:

    "(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the issue of disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act relating to price paid for purchase of raw materials at low rate?

    (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in holding that "Penalty is not leviable in respect of disallowance u/s. 80IB of the Act on account of raw material purchases as it is merely a claim which is found to be not sustainable in law", without appreciating that the A.O. had clearly established that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income liable for penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act?

    (c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in holding that "Since the addition on account of notional selling and distribution has been deleted in quantum proceedings, the penalty order passed with respect to such addition has no legs to stand", without appreciating that the issue involved has not attained finality, since the revenue's appeal against the order of ITAT Mumbai deleting quantum addition on the issue of selling and distribution expenses in the assessee's case for A.Y. 2006-07 is pending for adjudication before Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai?

    (d) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the issue of disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act relating to interest income received for A.Y. 2006-07 by relying on its judgment in the assessee's case for A.Y. 2005-06?

    (e) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the issue of disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act relating to interest income received for A.Y. 2006-07 ignoring the finding recorded by the A.O. in the penalty order to that effect?"

    1.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned ITAT in ITA No. 181/Mum/2014 for the A.Y. 2007-2008 by which the learned ITAT has dismissed the said Appeal preferred by the Revenue and has confirmed the order passed by the learned C.I.T.(A) deleting the penalty imposed under...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL