COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. LUDHIANA vs. M/S CARRIER EDUCATION OF INFOTECH GURGAON

ITA/14/2011HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095454201131 March 2011Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax) appealed against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated July 31, 2009, concerning assessment year 2003-04. The assessee, M/s Careers Education & Infotech Pvt. Ltd., a coaching center, had surrendered an additional income of Rs. 15,00,000 during a survey operation under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and filed a revised return. The Assessing Officer (AO) accepted the revised return but initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty was levied and upheld by the CIT(A). The ITAT, however, set aside the penalty, leading to the present appeal by the Revenue.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law. It agreed with the ITAT's reasoning that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not imposable. The Tribunal had categorically found that there was no material on record to infer concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The surrender of income during a survey, while it may not automatically exonerate the assessee from penalty, requires evidence of concealment or inaccurate particulars. The High Court rejected the Revenue's contention that a surrender automatically implies concealment, stating that the Madras High Court's judgment in P. Govindaswamy v. CIT was fact-specific and distinguishable. The Tribunal's reliance on the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision in Siddharth Enterprises and the Supreme Court's decision in Suresh Chand Mittal was deemed appropriate, emphasizing that penalty is imposed for deliberate default, not mere mistakes. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the ITAT was right in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) without appreciating that the disclosure of concealed income was not voluntary but consequent upon a survey operation where discrepancies were detected, leading to the surrender of Rs. 15,00,000? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 271(1)(c) and Section 133A). Assessee's Contention: The ITAT's decision was based on its finding that there was no material to infer concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not point out any defects in the books of accounts or accounting system, and the surrender was made to buy peace during the survey. The ITAT relied on the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision in Siddharth Enterprises and the Supreme Court's decision in Suresh Chand Mittal, holding that a mistake, not a deliberate attempt to evade tax, does not warrant penalty. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the ITAT was wrong in deleting the penalty. It contended that the concealment was rightly inferred and the penalty was justified, as the disclosure was a consequence of the survey operation and the assessee surrendered Rs. 15,00,000, admitting to concealment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 133A,Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of decision: 31.3.2011 Commissioner of Income Tax -----Appellant. Vs. M/s Careers Education & Infotech Pvt. Ltd. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Standing Counsel for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 31.7.2009 in ITA No.1868/Del/2007 for the assessment year 2003-04 claiming following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) without appreciating that the act of disclosing the concealed income was not voluntary but consequent upon the survey operation u/s 133A of the I.T. Act, 1961 wherein several fallacies and discrepancies were detected and as a result thereof the assessee revised his Income Tax Return and surrendered the amount of Rs.15,00,000/-?

2.

Whether

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 271(1)(c)

All 24,918 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →