COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FARIDABAD vs. SHRI CHAND

PDF · subscribers
ITA/495/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093434201008 November 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue. The Court noted that an identical matter, ITA No. 16 of 2010 (CIT v. Fateh Singh (HUF)), had been decided on July 15, 2010, against the Revenue. Although the specific reasoning of the ITAT's order being challenged is not elaborated upon in the High Court's judgment, the dismissal of the appeal implies agreement with the ITAT's decision or the precedent set by the earlier identical case. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal, meaning the ITAT's order stands. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated December 15, 2009, for the assessment year 1996-97. The ITAT had quashed an order imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the grounds that the addition in respect of which the penalty was levied had been deleted by the Tribunal. The Revenue challenged the ITAT's deletion of the penalty and its directions regarding future consideration of the penalty in case the quantum addition was modified or set aside by a higher appellate authority. The High Court noted that an identical matter, ITA No. 16 of 2010 (CIT v. Fateh Singh (HUF)), had been decided against the Revenue by the same Court on July 15, 2010.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was right in law in quashing the order imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by holding that the addition in respect of which penalty has been levied stands deleted by the Tribunal? (Question of law) 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was right in deleting the penalty order and simultaneously issuing directions that in case the quantum addition is modified or set aside or altered by the higher appellate authority, the Department shall be at liberty to move an application to consider the matter afresh on merit in light of the final outcome of the quantum matter without giving specific direction to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the penalty in case the quantum order is restored? (Question of mixed law and fact) Contentions: Revenue: The Revenue argued that the ITAT was wrong in quashing the penalty order and in its directions concerning future consideration of the penalty. The specific arguments of the Revenue are not detailed in the judgment, beyond the fact that they are challenging the ITAT's order. Assessee: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of decision: 8.11.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Appellant. Vs. Sh. Shri Chand (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. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order dated 15.12.2009 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in I.T.A. No.3948/Del/2009 for the assessment year 1996-97 proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “I. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. ITAT was right in law in quashing the order imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by holding the addition in respect of which penalty has been levied stands deleted by the Tribunal?

2.

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. ITAT was right in deleting the penalty order and simultaneously by issuing directions that in case the quantum addition is modified or set aside or altered by the higher appellate authority, the Department shall be at a liberty to move an application to consider the matter afresh on merit in the light of the final outcome of the quantum matter without giving specific direction to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the penalty in case the quantum order is restored?”

Learned counsel for the revenue is unable to dispute that identical matter being I.T.A. No.16 of 2010 CIT v. Fateh Singh (HUF) has been decided on 15.7.2010 by this Court against the revenue. In view of above, this appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 08, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2

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 →