THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, LUDHIANA vs. M/S KARNA INTERNAITONAL ETC, LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/895/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093876201025 April 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellant (revenue) fairly stated that the matter is covered against the revenue by an order of this Court dated 28.7.2010 in ITA No.225 of 2010, titled The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Raj Overseas. Consequently, the Court held that no substantial question of law arises. The appeal was dismissed. The specific reasoning of the ITAT or the CIT(A) for deleting the penalty is not detailed in this judgment, nor is the ratio decidendi of the cited High Court judgment explicitly stated, other than it being adverse to the revenue on this issue. No specific operative directions were issued by the High Court, as the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax-III, Ludhiana (the revenue) against an order dated 19.2.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench 'B'. The ITAT's order upheld the deletion of a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the CIT(A)-II, Ludhiana, whose order was dated 31.8.2009. The assessment year in question is 2004-05. The assessee is M/s Karna International. The revenue's appeal to the High Court was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A)-II, Ludhiana dated 31.8.2009 deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act? The revenue contended that the ITAT was not right in law in upholding the deletion of the penalty. The revenue's argument was that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) should have been sustained. The assessee's arguments are not recorded in the judgment. The revenue stated that the matter is covered against the revenue by a previous order of the High Court.

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: 25.4.2011 Commissioner of Income-tax-III , Ludhiana

...Appellant Versus M/s Karna International ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Denesh Goel, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant.

**** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J (

Oral)

.

1.

This Appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against order dated 19.2.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B',Chandigarh in ITA No.1033/CHD/2009, for the assessment year 2004-05, raising following substantial questions of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A)-II, Ludhiana dated 31.8.2009 deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271 (1)(c) of I.T.Act?”

2.

Learned counsel for the appellant fairly states that matter is covered against the revenue by order of this Court dated -2- *** 28.7.2010 in ITA No.225 of 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Raj Overseas. In view of above, no substantial question of law arises.

The appeal is dismissed.

(Adarsh Kumar Goel)

Judge April 25,2010 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka

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 →