2016 (6) TMI 108 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) - addition made on recomputation of income under the head income from house property - Tribunal held that levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in respect of this addition, was not warranted - Held that - An appeal under Section 260A of the Act can be entertained only if a substantial question of law arises for consideration. It is only if the appellants are able to satisfy the Court that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is based on no evidence or the finding is perverse, can a substantial question of law be said to arise necessitating interference in appeal under Section 260A of the Act. In the present case, the Tribunal has held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was on recomputation of the income under the head income from house property and loss on sale of fixed assets ; the assessee had neither concealed any income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income for the year under consideration; and that the addition was merely technical in nature. It is not even the case of Sri J.V.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, that the above referred findings of the Tribunal are either perverse or are based on no evidence. We see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the order of the Tribunal in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Act. - Decided against revenue

Issues:
Appeal against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Addition under 'Income from House Property' - Disallowance of loss on sale of fixed assets - Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act - Substantial question of law for consideration under Section 260A of the Act.

Analysis:
The appeal before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was made against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the addition under 'Income from House Property' and disallowance of loss on the sale of fixed assets. The case involved the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal had ruled that the addition under 'Income from House Property' was due to an arithmetical mistake in the computation statement filed by the assessee, and the addition was technical in nature. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had not concealed any income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The High Court noted that for an appeal under Section 260A, a substantial question of law must arise, and interference is warranted only if the Tribunal's finding is based on no evidence or is perverse. In this case, the Tribunal's findings were not found to be either perverse or unsupported by evidence, leading the High Court to dismiss the appeal.

The Tribunal's decision was based on the fact that the addition under 'Income from House Property' was a result of an arithmetical mistake in the computation statement, and the assessee had disclosed all relevant facts in the return of income. The Tribunal also noted that there was no evidence of income concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the addition was technical in nature and not a deliberate attempt to evade taxes. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's findings and held that there was no substantial question of law necessitating interference under Section 260A of the Act.

The High Court emphasized that for an appeal under Section 260A, it must be shown that the Tribunal's findings are either unsupported by evidence or perverse. In this case, the Tribunal had carefully considered the facts and circumstances, concluding that the addition under 'Income from House Property' was a result of an arithmetical error and not an attempt to conceal income. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order, as there was no substantial question of law raised that warranted intervention. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. Any pending miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed in light of the judgment.

← Previous Next →