Skip to content


Commissioner of Income Tax, Baroda Vs. Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 1858 of 1994
Judge
Reported inAIR2000SC3628; [2000]246ITR462(SC); (1999)9SCC228
ActsIncome Tax Act - Sections 273(2) and 279(2)
AppellantCommissioner of Income Tax, Baroda
RespondentGujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd.
Excerpt:
.....had given a categorical finding that the assessee had acted in conscious disregard of its statutory obligation with a view to reduce the quantum of its legitimate and proper advance-tax liability, the appellate tribunal was right in law and on fact in holding that this was not a fit case for levy of penalty under section 279(2)(a) of the i......under section 279(2)(a) of the i.-t. act.2. the appellate tribunal rejected the application of the revenue for reference on the ground that the facts found by the tribunal did not give rise to the question of law raised by the revenue. that view was affirmed by the high court and thus there was no reference to the high court.3. it is seen that the tribunal has found on the facts, that the figures submitted by the assessee were on an honest belief of the estimate made by it pursuant to the position in law as it was understood at that time by the decisions of the court. hence the fact that the estimated income returned by the assessee for the purpose of advance-tax was lesser than the annual income would not bring the assessee within the ambit of section 273(2)(a) of the income-tax act......
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the Judgment of the High Court which confirmed the view taken by the Tribunal in this matter. The only question that was sought to be referred to the High Court by the Revenue was as follows:

Whether when the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had given a categorical finding that the assessee had acted in conscious disregard of its statutory obligation with a view to reduce the quantum of its legitimate and proper advance-tax liability, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on fact in holding that this was not a fit case for levy of penalty Under Section 279(2)(a) of the I.-T. Act.

2. The Appellate Tribunal rejected the application of the Revenue for reference on the ground that the facts found by the Tribunal did not give rise to the question of law raised by the Revenue. That view was affirmed by the High Court and thus there was no reference to the High Court.

3. It is seen that the Tribunal has found on the facts, that the figures submitted by the assessee were on an honest belief of the estimate made by it pursuant to the position in law as it was understood at that time by the decisions of the Court. Hence the fact that the estimated income returned by the assessee for the purpose of advance-tax was lesser than the annual income would not bring the assessee within the ambit of Section 273(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act. The view expressed by the Tribunal on such factual conclusions is unassailable and the High Court did not commit any error in refusing to call for a reference. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //