Gujarat High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Core Health Care Ltd on 12 January, 2017
Bench: M.R. Shah, B.N. Karia
O/OJCA/5/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT
AHMEDABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION (OJ) No. 5 of 2017
In
TAX APPEAL No. 26 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (OJ) No. 6 of 2017
In
TAX APPEAL NO. 27 of 2017
To
CIVIL APPLICATION (OJ) NO. 8 of 2017
In
TAX APPEAL NO. 29 of 2017
With
TAX APPEAL No. 26 of 2017
To
TAX APPEAL No. 29 of 2017
=============================================================
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-
3....Applicant(s) Versus CORE HEALTH CARE LTD....Respondent(s) ============================================================= Appearance :
Mr M.R BHATT, Sr Advocate with Mrs MAUNA M BHATT, Advocate for Applicant ============================================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA 12th January 2017 Page 1 of 4 HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Sat Aug 12 08:41:53 IST 2017 O/OJCA/5/2017 ORDER COMMON ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) As common question of law and facts arise in this group of Applications/Tax Appeals, which arise out of common judgment and order dated 18th February 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, all these Applications/Appeals are decided and disposed of by this common order.
All these Applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act have been preferred by the Revenue requesting to condone delay of 11 days occurred in preferring respective Tax Appeals against the common judgment and order dated 18th February 2016 passed by the learned Tribunal, Ahmedabad in ITA No. 2668 to 2671/Ahd/ 2011 [For A.Y 1998-99 to 2001-2002]. Considering the fact that delay is only of 11 days, delay is condoned. Registry is directed to give regular Tax Appeal number in Appeals. We have heard Shri Manish R. Bhatt, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of Revenue on merits of the impugned common Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Sat Aug 12 08:41:53 IST 2017 O/OJCA/5/2017 ORDER judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. Having heard Shri M.R Bhatt learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue and considering the impugned order passed by the learned CIT [A] and the learned Tribunal, it appears that the Assessing Officer imposed penalty under Section 271[1](c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the claim made by the assessee with respect to excess remuneration paid to the Managing Director and prior period expenditure. The learned CIT [A] as well as learned Tribunal have deleted the said penalty, relying on a decision of the Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Reliance Petro-Products, 322 ITR 158 (SC) by observing that merely because the claim of the assessee was disallowed and in absence of any other allegation that the same was made with mala fide intention, the learned CIT [A] as well as learned Tribunal have deleted the penalty. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned CIT [A], confirmed by learned Tribunal Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Sat Aug 12 08:41:53 IST 2017 O/OJCA/5/2017 ORDER under Section 271[1](c) of the Act. The issue is squarely covered against the Revenue in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro- Products [Supra].
Under the circumstances, Tax Appeals lack merit and they deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.
{M.R Shah, J.} {B.N Karia, J.} Prakash Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Sat Aug 12 08:41:53 IST 2017