IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 ITA.No. 1361 of 2009() ---------------------- ITA.42/COCH/2001 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): --------------- M/S.NOBLE PICTURES, ALUVA. ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA FOR R1 THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2010, ALONG WITH ITA NO.1444 OF 2009, THE COURT ON 02/02/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- I.T. A. Nos. 1361 & 1444 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeals are filed by the department challenging the orders of Tribunal cancelling penalty levied on the respondent for failure to furnish statement in Form No. 52A. The assessments are for the years 1990-91 and 1991-92. During the previous years, respondent was engaged in film production and in each of the two years respondent produced two films. As required under the Rules, respondent was bound to furnish Form 52A within 30 days from the date of completion of production of film. While the case of the respondent is that statutory statements were furnished, the department's case is that there is no evidence for the same. Even though respondent has not produced evidence, we notice that Tribunal found that respondent filed returns on due dates and the same were processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. If there was statutory violation it was open to the Officer to initiate penalty then and there. On the other hand, penalty was levied 2 under Section 272A(2)(c) after 10 years of the alleged offence. The Tribunal found that penalty proceedings are time barred and besides this, the Tribunal accepted the possibility of respondent filing the statement, because later along with explanation the respondent-assessee sent even copy of Form No. 52A. We do not find any merit in the appeals filed by the Department, which has slept over the matter for 10 years from the date of alleged violation to initiate penalty proceedings. Consequently, we dismiss the appeals. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (P.S. GOPINATHAN) Judge. kk