ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI VINOD BANWARI LAL GOYAL

PDF · subscribers
TAXC/32/2008HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01012959200807 August 2009Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DHIRENDRA MISHRA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, taking into consideration the submission by the revenue that the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than the minimum monetary limit fixed by the Board, and keeping in view the circular dated 24th October, 2005 issued by the Board, did not deem it necessary to go into the merits of the appeal. The Court dismissed the appeal having negligible tax effect. The specific findings on the legality of charging interest under Sections 234B and 234C, or the legality of the Tribunal's order based on evidence, were not adjudicated upon due to the dismissal on the ground of low tax effect. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Vinod Bhanwarilal Goyal, runs a courier service. For a relevant assessment year, the Assessing Officer (AO) determined the assessee's income at Rs. 47,26,501/-. The AO also initiated proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and charged interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), who allowed the appeal and deleted the interest under Section 234B. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) confirmed the order of the CIT(A). The revenue (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur) has filed this appeal before the High Court against the Tribunal's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) with regards to charging of interest U/s. 234B & 234C? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of case the order by the Tribunal is illegal and was not based on any reliable and legally acceptable evidence? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's contentions: The revenue, represented by Shri S. Rajeshwara Rao, conceded that the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than the monetary limit of Rs. 4 lakhs fixed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide Instructions No. 279 dated 24th October, 2005, for filing appeals in the High Court. The revenue also stated that no exceptional circumstances exist in the case to relax this limit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

swy, v\ few '?!Tt'/-T^ ^BJ^ ^sS 's^s •^wwf,, wws6, fsi^irey J° 3TI*?ITraq; (ijcli^y) 's^nw ^fta S'R?! ^ rf<rf'^'t ^wvn\ ^ f^^ ^f^R ^affinsn^i D.B. HON'BLE SHRI OHIRENbRA MISHRA. & HON'BLE^SHRI R.N. CHklNDRAKAR. JJ Tax Case (Incomd Tax ApDeal) No.32 of 2008 Appetlant Respondent Assistont C6 (CS) mmissioner of Income Tax-2(l), Raipur Versus Shri Vinod Eianwari Lal 6oyal, C-l, Vinay Complex, Nayapara, R^iipur (C(3) 8.8.2009: Shri 5. Rajeshwara Rao, l^arned counsel for the appelkint/revenue. Heard. The appellant/revenue |ias preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, |1961 (in short "the Act") against the order of the Income Tax Appellate [Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur (in short "Tribunal") on the following sub'stantial questions of law; 1 "3.1 Whether, on the Ifacts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the order of the learned Commissioher of Income Tax (Appeals) with regards to charging of interest U/s. 234B & 234C?

3.

2 Whether on the facts and in the circuinstance of case the order by the Tribunal is illegat and was not based on any \ reliable and legally acceptable evidence?" V';tr^r^: ^ -^:- --Ad^k-h--. ^(^•s"»a-^^

^y^ "• eS 1 s \^^./ '^a.V~ ''•s'^w" tl-HC—78 -T V, fCTRi fSff STT^I g>^t}<^ ^Sf •*fWWi, 8lfll<Hil<a, T^IR?1 ?i; sn^; TW (4ciij<!^E() wnw Tif^ioiKw 2- qiF»ferat;r•wrcff'q fs^ T^R ^affinsn^ Briefly stated, facts of th^ case are that the respondent/assessee derives income by running couri^r service at Raipur. For the relevant ussessment year, the Assessing pfficer (AO) completed the assessment CTT(A) allowed the appeal and de by determining income of the asfsessee at Rs.47,26,501/-. The AO also initiated proeeedings under SectJon 271(l)(c) of the Act and interest was charged under Sections 234A, 2|34B & 234C of the Act and also levied penatty under Section 271(l)(c). The assessee preferred a(^)eal against the order of the AO before the Commissioner of Income Tcuj; (Appeals) {for brevity "dT(A)"}. The leted the interest under Section 234B of the Act. The order of the CTT(4) was further confirmed by the Tribunal,

hence this appeal. | 1 Before entering into the iperits of the case, Shri S. Rajeshwara Rao, learned counsel for the app^llant fairly submits that the tax effect involved in this appeal is less thar? the monetary limit of Rs.4 hcs, as fixed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Instructions No. 279 dated 24 October, 2005, for filing appeal in the High Court. No exceptional circumstance, as enumerated in'the said Circular, exists in the present case for relaxing the minimum mdnetary limit.

j !:' I, ,"""IB .': kt.. %—XI^HC—78 -T-^^ ?"-r^ff^ -.^'- 'SW. VI. k'1!<*> ?t2n SH^T^T^ 7ST -41<llcfl-s), QTll'M-IS, faidiyy 3^rtT5RTCq?tgs^tr) li^nw ^ifei ww ^i'sifOTsii^ Taking into consideration by the Board in this regard, we tthe fact that the tax effect involved in the present case is less thom t|ie minimum monetary liinit fixed by the Board. and keeping in view the ^ircular dated 24 October, 2005 issued do not deem it necessar/ to go into the merits of the appeal and we (Rismiss the appeal having negligible tax effect. -____ sdy- Dhirendra Mishra Jadge R.N. Chandrakar Judge

More judgments on Section 234A

All 5,126 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →