CIT, FARIDABAD vs. SHIR CHAND, HUF

PDF · subscribers
ITA/444/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093378201013 October 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 filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the concession made by the Revenue's counsel that an identical matter, CIT v. Fateh Singh (HUF), had already been decided by the High Court on 15.7.2010 against the Revenue. Therefore, the High Court did not independently analyze the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on the basis of precedent.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 15.12.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), New Delhi. The ITAT's order pertained to the assessment year 1997-98 and concerned a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appeal was filed proposing substantial questions of law. The High Court noted that the Revenue's counsel was unable to dispute that an identical matter, ITA No. 16 of 2010 (CIT v. Fateh Singh (HUF)), had been decided by the same Court on 15.7.2010 against the Revenue. Consequently, the present appeal was dismissed.

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 was levied stood deleted by the Tribunal? 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 directions to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the penalty if the quantum order is restored? Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded. Revenue: The Revenue's counsel was unable to dispute that an identical matter had been decided against the Revenue by this Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of decision: 13.10.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Appellant. Vs. Sh. Shri Chand. -----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.3949/Del/2009 for the assessment year 1997-98 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 October 13, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →