THE COMMR. OF INCOME TAX-I CHD. vs. ANOOP BANSAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/174/2006HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01074860200611 April 2016Author: MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN,MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the Revenue, through its counsel, submitted that in view of CBDT Circulars No. 21/2015 and No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part), it did not wish to press the present appeal as the tax effect was less than Rs. 20 lacs. The Revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein. The Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed with the liberty as prayed for. 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, and the legal issue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No finding was given on the merits of the penalty deletion by the ITAT.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh (Revenue) against an order dated 12.09.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, for the assessment year 1990-91. The ITAT had deleted a penalty imposed on Shri Anoop Bansal (Assessee) under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was levied for alleged deliberate violation of Section 269SS of the Act, with the Revenue contending no bonafide reason existed for the assessee's actions. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in deleting the penalty u/s 271D when the assessee deliberately violated the provision of Section 269 SS of the Income Tax Act and no bonafide reason existed in the case of the assessee? Assessee's arguments: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue contended that the ITAT was not justified in deleting the penalty under Section 271D as the assessee had deliberately violated Section 269SS without any bonafide reason. 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 Rs. 20 lacs.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 271D,Section 269SS

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 Anoop Bansal ......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 12.9.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (A), in ITA No. 602/Chandi/2003, for the assessment year 1990-91, raising the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in deleting the penalty u/s 271 D when the assessee deliberately violated the provision of Section 269 SS of the Income Tax Act and no bonafide reason existed in the case of the assessee? 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 →