(O&M) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. SUBHASH GUPTA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/680/2005HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01072504200511 April 2016Author: THE TAXING OFFICER,MR. JUSTICE SATPAL2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The Revenue's counsel submitted that in view of the CBDT circulars regarding tax effect, she did not wish to press the appeal. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein. The Court clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits, and the legal issue raised by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. Therefore, no finding was given on the substantial question of law by the High Court.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 11.05.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, for the assessment year 1990-91. The ITAT's order had granted the assessee, Shri Subhash Gupta, the benefit of immunity from penalties under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, including penalties under Section 271D, despite the issue regarding cash loans not being covered under the declaration made under the Scheme. The appeal was filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was legally correct to hold that the benefit of immunity from all penalties was conferred to the assessee under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, including penalty leviable under Section 271D, when the issue regarding cash loan was not covered under the declaration under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the benefit of immunity from penalties under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, should not have been granted to the assessee for the penalty under Section 271D, as the issue of cash loans was not covered by the declaration made under the Scheme. The Revenue relied on Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 and Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, stating that the tax effect involved was less than ₹20 lacs.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 271D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 11.04.2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh .......Appellant Versus Shri Subhash Gupta ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, 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 11.5.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (A), in ITA No. 527/Chandi/2002, for the assessment year 1990-91, raising the following substantial question of law: Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was legally correct to hold that the benefit of immunity from all penalties was conferred to the assessee under Kar vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 including penalty leviable under Section 271 D, when the issue regarding cash loan was not covered under the declaration under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998? REEMA SAINI 2016.04.26 10:57 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, she does not wish to press the present appeal, as the tax effect involved is less than ` 20 lacs. However, she 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) 11.04.2016 JUDGE reema REEMA SAINI 2016.04.26 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 271D

All 1,725 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →