CIT, ROHTAK vs. M/S GIANI RAM AND CO.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/193/2009HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084274200923 July 2009Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the Revenue's appeals against the quantum additions, which were the basis for the penalty, had already been dismissed by the High Court itself in ITA No. 661 of 2008 (CIT Vs. M/s Giani Ram & Company) on July 16, 2009. Since the foundational quantum additions were not sustained, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) would consequently not stand. Therefore, the High Court found no merit in the Revenue's appeal against the ITAT's order cancelling the penalty. The operative direction was the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench. The ITAT's order, dated April 7, 2008, pertained to ITA No. 4445/Del/2005 for the assessment year 1995-96. The appeal challenged the ITAT's decision to cancel a penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Revenue's primary contention was that the ITAT ignored the fact that appeals against the quantum additions were pending before the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in cancelling the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) imposed by the AO, ignoring the facts of the case that Revenue's appeals against the quantum additions are pending before Hon'ble High Court? Assessee's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred in cancelling the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) by overlooking the pending appeals before the High Court concerning the quantum additions. The Revenue relied on the pendency of these appeals as a ground to uphold the penalty.

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: 23.7.2009 Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak ..........Appellant Versus M/s Giani Ram & Company, Liquor Contractor, ..........Respondent Meham (Rohtak) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral)

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, Delhi Bench, 'I', New Delhi dated 7.4.2008 passed in ITA No. 4445/Del/2005 for the assessment year 1995-96, proposing to raise following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in cancelling the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed by the A.O., ignoring the facts of the case that Revenue's appeals against the quantum additions are pending before Hon'ble High Court?”

2.

Learned counsel for the revenue states that the assessee succeeded in quantum matter, against which ITA No. 661 of 2008(CIT Vs.

(2) M/s Giani Ram & Company) has been dismissed by this Court on 16.7.2009. 3. In view of above, this appeal is also dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 23, 2009

(DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No

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 →