COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KULDEEP SOOD ENTERPRISES

PDF · subscribers
ITA/606/2006HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01075347200611 April 2016Author: MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN,MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, with liberty granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for. The Court clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be considered an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. The legal issue raised by the revenue was expressly left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The specific reasoning for the deletion of the penalty by the ITAT, or the finding on the substantial question of law regarding the deletion of penalty despite upheld concealment, was not adjudicated upon by the High Court due to the appeal being withdrawn by the revenue.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana-II (appellant-revenue) against an order dated 20.04.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, in ITA No. 806/Chandi/2002, pertaining to assessment year 1988-89. The dispute concerns the deletion of a penalty of ₹2,96,340 levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT had previously upheld the concealment of income by the assessee, M/s Kuldip Sood Enterprises, in a separate order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in deleting the penalty of ₹2,96,340 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the fact that the concealment of income by the assessee has been upheld by the ITAT itself vide its order ITA No.999/Chandi/1993 dated 17.10.2000? Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the ITAT erred in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) when the concealment of income had already been confirmed by the Tribunal. 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, and therefore, did not wish to press the appeal. The revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

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 Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana-II .......Appellant Versus M/s Kuldip Sood Enterprises Gill Road, Ludhiana ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: Mr. Zora Singh Klar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the respondent. 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 20.4.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (B), in ITA No. 806/Chandi/2002, for the assessment year 1988-89, raising the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was right in deleting the penalty of ` 2,96, 340/ u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 despite the fact that the concealment of income by the assessee has been uphold by the ITAT itself vide its order ITA No.999/Chandi/1993 dated 17.10.2000? REEMA SAINI 2016.05.02 10:18 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) 11.04.2016 JUDGE reema REEMA SAINI 2016.05.02 10:18 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 →