COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GURGAON vs. M/S CREW BOS PRODUCTS LTD NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA/91/2015HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110195201511 May 2016Author: MR. JUSTICE M.M. AGGARWAL,MR. JUSTICE A.B. CHAUDHARI2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The appeal was dismissed as not pressed. The Revenue's counsel, in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 and Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, stated that they did not wish to press the appeal as the tax effect involved was less than ₹20 lacs. The Revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein. The Court granted liberty as prayed. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the Revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. The legal issue raised by the Revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 8.8.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench. The ITAT's order pertained to ITA No. 1948/Del/2013 for the assessment year 2003-04. The appeal challenged the ITAT's deletion of a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The amount in dispute was not explicitly stated, but the appeal was filed based on the tax effect being above a certain threshold. The procedural history involves the Revenue filing this appeal after the ITAT's decision.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT erred in law by deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, solely on the ground that such penalty is not leviable when there is a mere denial of a claim for deduction made by the assessee? 2. Whether the ITAT erred in law by failing to appreciate that the deduction claimed by the assessee, in gross disregard to the unambiguous provisions of Section 80HHC of the Act, amounts to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as contemplated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act? Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue: Argued that the ITAT erred in deleting the penalty, contending that the assessee's claim for deduction, made in disregard of Section 80HHC, constituted furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, thereby attracting penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 271(1)(c),Section 80HHC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 11.05.2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon .......Appellant Versus M/s Crew Bos Products Ltd. ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate for the appellant. RAJESH BINDAL,J. This appeal has been filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), against the order dated 8.8.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' New Delhi, in ITA No. 1948/Del/2013, for the assessment year 2003-04, raising the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether ITAT has erred in law in deleting penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that such penalty is not leviable in a case where there is mere denial of the claim of deduction claimed by the assessee? (ii) Whether ITAT has erred in law in not appreciating that the deduction claimed by the assessee in gross disregard to unambiguous provisions of Section 80HHC of the Act amounts to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as contemplated u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act? REEMA SAINI 2016.05.18 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh -2- Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that in view of circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 read with circular No.279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, he does not wish to press the present appeal, as the tax effect involved is less than ` 20 lacs. However, he prays that liberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein. Dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. It is however, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not be taken as affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. The legal issue as claimed by the revenue is left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. (RAJESH BINDAL)

JUDGE (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU) 11.05.2016 JUDGE reema REEMA SAINI 2016.05.18 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →