2020 (10) TMI 1096 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - ITAT set aside the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) as well as by the AO and allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee - HELD THAT - Revenue could not dispute the position that the order of the Tribunal 2019 (8) TMI 1122 - ITAT BANGALORE is based on the decision rendered by this Court in 'CIT VS. SSA'S EMERALD MEADOWS 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT . Since the order of the Tribunal is based on the decision rendered by a Bench of this Court, in our opinion, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2009-10.
2. Dispute regarding the income determination and penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
3. Appeal process from Assessing Officer to Tribunal based on previous court decisions.
4. Consideration of substantial question of law in the appeal.

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the Karnataka High Court under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertained to the Assessment Year 2009-10. The appellant, a Company engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling solar cells, photovoltaic modules, and systems, had filed a return of income declaring ?13,90,62,429. The Assessing Officer concluded the assessment by determining the income at ?17,10,43,180 and initiated proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, leading to a penalty of ?1,11,79,217 being levied. The subsequent appeal process involved the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upholding the order, followed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal setting aside the previous decisions and allowing the appeal by the assessee.

2. The High Court considered the arguments presented by the learned counsel for the revenue, who acknowledged that the Tribunal's order was based on a previous decision of the Court in 'CIT VS. SSA'S EMERALD MEADOWS' dated 23.11.2015. As the Tribunal's decision relied on the Court's precedent, the High Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the appeal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that it failed to establish any grounds warranting a different outcome based on existing legal interpretations and precedents.

3. The judgment highlights the importance of adherence to legal precedents and the significance of decisions rendered by higher courts in guiding the outcomes of tax-related disputes. By emphasizing the reliance on established case law, the High Court's decision underscores the need for consistency and uniformity in interpreting tax laws and regulations. The dismissal of the appeal based on the absence of a substantial question of law reaffirms the principle of legal certainty and the role of judicial decisions in shaping the resolution of tax controversies.