C I T vs. M/S SHRI SADHWA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/248/2008HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01080219200810 August 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose in the appeal. It relied on its previous decision in ITA No. 247 of 2008, wherein it was held that no taxable capital gains arose from the sale of agricultural land. Consequently, the High Court reasoned that if no taxable capital gains arose, the question of concealment of income does not arise, and therefore, no penalty was exigible. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition to the income of Shri Sadhwa (HUF) for capital gains arising from the sale of agricultural land. Subsequently, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were initiated, resulting in a penalty of Rs. 37,50,780/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) set aside this penalty. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the order of the CIT(A). The revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad, filed an appeal before the High Court against the ITAT's decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) at Rs. 37,50,780/-? The revenue contended that the penalty was rightly imposed. The assessee's contention, as inferred from the High Court's decision, was that no taxable capital gains arose from the sale of agricultural land, thus precluding any concealment of income and subsequent penalty. The High Court referred to its prior decision in ITA No. 247 of 2008, which held that no taxable capital gains arose on the sale of agricultural land.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 10.8.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ....Appellant. Versus Shri Sadhwa (HUF) ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1.

The Assessing Officer having made an addition in the income returned by the assessee on account of capital gains arising from sale of agricultural land initiated proceedings for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) and imposed a penalty of Rs.37,50,780/- which was set aside on appeal by the CIT (A). The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT (A). The revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Act claiming the following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) at Rs.37,50,780/-?”

2.

This Court while deciding ITA No. 247 of 2008 [The -2- Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. M/s Shri Sadhwa (HUF)] has held that no taxable capital gains arose on the sale of the agricultural land. In such a situation question of concealment of income does not arise and, therefore, no penalty was exigible.

3.

Accordingly, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE August 10, 2010 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) gbs JUDGE

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 →