THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JALANDHAR vs. SMT. PARMATMA KAUR

ITA/180/2009HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084260200923 September 2009Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-II, appealed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar Bench. The ITAT's order, dated 16.9.2008, concerned the assessment year 2002-03. The Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. The CIT(A) had set aside the penalty order, relying on this Court's decision in CIT Vs. Munish Iron Store. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order. The Revenue sought to rely on the amendment inserting Section 271(1B) by the Finance Act, 2008, effective from 1.4.1989. The High Court issued notice based on its earlier judgment in CIT Vs. Pearey Lal and Sons.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on the issue of penalty. The Court referred to its earlier judgment in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pearey Lal and Sons (supra), which had explained the observations in CIT Vs. Munish Iron Store (supra). In Pearey Lal and Sons, it was held that whether satisfaction existed and was recorded during assessment was a matter of substance, not form. The absence of satisfaction could be inferred from the overall findings in the assessment order, not just the omission of specific words. The present appeal was covered by the Pearey Lal and Sons judgment. Therefore, the Tribunal was directed to take a fresh decision on the penalty issue in accordance with the law laid down.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that an order passed by the Tribunal before the insertion of Section 271(1B) by the Finance Bill 2008 could not be considered erroneous and that the amended provisions of Section 271(1B) were not applicable to cases decided prior to the amendment? (Question of law) 2. Whether the ITAT was correct in law in ignoring the ratio of the jurisdictional Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment in M/s Nakodar Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd., ITA No. 441 of 2007? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: Not recorded as none appeared for the respondent. Revenue's contentions: Relied on the amendment incorporating Section 271(1B) inserted by Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f. 1.4.1989. The Revenue also relied on the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pearey Lal and Sons (2009) 308 ITR 438.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
I.T.A. No. 180 of 2009 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.A. No. 180 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 23.09.2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-II, ..........Appellant Jalandhar Versus Smt. Parmatma Kaur, Village Langia Goraya, ..........Respondent District, Jalandhar. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. ****

Order

1.

The revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar dated 16.9.2008 passed in M.A. No. 64 for the assessment year 2002-03, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT is right in law in holding that the order passed by the Tribunal before insertion of Section 271 (1B) to the status by Finance Bill 2008 cannot be said to be erroneous and the amended provisions of section 271(1B) are not applicable in the cases decided prior to insertion of this amendment. (ii)Whether the Hon'bl

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 →