THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1 CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB INFRASTRUCTURE DEV BOARD CHANDIGARH

ITA/65/2016HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110659201609 May 2017Author: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-I, Chandigarh, filed appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 30.09.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench. The appeals, including ITA No. 65 of 2016, concerned assessment year 2009-10 and challenged the deletion of penalties imposed under Section 271CA for non-collection of tax at source under Section 206C. The ITAT had relied on its earlier decisions in the assessee's own cases for various assessment years. The Revenue noted that similar appeals filed by them against the ITAT's pronouncements were set aside and remanded by the High Court on 20.12.2016. Therefore, the Revenue requested a similar remand for the present appeals.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the ITAT had adjudicated the appeals by relying on its earlier decisions. The High Court also observed that similar appeals filed by the Revenue against the ITAT's pronouncements had been set aside and remanded by the High Court for fresh consideration. Consequently, the impugned orders passed by the ITAT were set aside. The matters were remanded back to the ITAT for a fresh decision after affording an opportunity of hearing to both parties in accordance with law. The Court did not decide on the merits of the penalty deletion.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT was legally correct in deleting penalties imposed under Section 271CA for non-collection of tax at source under Section 206C, despite the assessee's default in collecting such tax. 2. Whether the ITAT's order was contrary to the evidence and material on record, rendering it perverse. 3. Whether the ITAT's order suffered from non-application of mind, making it unreasonable and arbitrary. Assessee's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the assessee's counsel. However, the assessee's counsel opposed the revenue's prayer for remand. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue argued that the ITAT had relied on its earlier decisions, which were subsequently set aside and remanded by the High Court in similar appeals. Therefore, the Revenue prayed for the present appeals to be allowed and the matter remanded to the ITAT for a fresh decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 271CA,Section 206C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.65 of 2016 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 09.05.2017 The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-I, Chandigarh ----Appellant Versus M/s Punjab Infrastructure Dev. Boar ----Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu Present: Mr. Denesh Goyal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant(s).

Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent(s). ***** Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.

This order shall dispose of four appeals, namely ITA Nos.65 of 2016, 69 of 2016, 97 of 2016 and 98 of 2016 as the learned counsel for the parties state that the common questions of law and facts are involved therein. However, for the sake of brevity the facts are being taken from ITA No.65 of 2016. 2. The revenue has filed the appeal No.65 of 2016 under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the Act') against order dated 30.09.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for brevity 'the Tribunal') in ITA No. 789/Chd/2013 for the assessment year 2009-10. It has been claimed that the following substantial questions of law arise for determination of this Court: “(i)

Whe

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 271CA

All 42 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271CA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →