COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JD vs. RAKESH KUMAR,NAGESH HOSIERY EX

PDF · subscribers
ITR/160/1999HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01038599199928 August 2009Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the reference had been rendered infructuous. This decision was based on the submission by the revenue's counsel that the issue in dispute had been settled under the 'Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme'. A certificate dated February 25, 1999, issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana, under Section 90(2) read with Section 91 of the Finance Act No. 2 of 1998, was presented to support this assertion. Consequently, the Court dismissed the reference as prayed by the revenue. The specific findings of the ITAT or the CIT(A) regarding the deletion of the penalty were not discussed or re-evaluated by the High Court, as the matter was disposed of on procedural grounds related to the settlement scheme. No issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

This case involves a reference to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh concerning an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, dated November 22, 1990, for the assessment year 1981-82. The appeal challenged the ITAT's decision to uphold the deletion of a penalty amounting to Rs. 1,12,294, which had been levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar, was the appellant, and Shri Rakesh Kumar, Nagesh Hosiery Exports, Ludhiana, was the respondent. The procedural history leading to this reference is not detailed, beyond the ITAT's order being the subject of the challenge.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the learned CIT(A) who deleted the penalty of Rs. 1,12,294 levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the assessee before the High Court. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel stated that the issue has been settled under the 'Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme' for the assessment year in question, as per a Certificate dated February 25, 1999, issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana, under Section 90(2) read with Section 91 of the Finance Act No. 2 of 1998.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 90(2),Section 91

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

I.T.R. No. 160 of 1999 Date of decision: 28.8.2009 The Commissioner of Income-tax, CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Mr.K.K.Mehta, Senior Standing Counsel for revenue. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral)

1.

The following question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court arising out of order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, dated 22.11.1990 in ITA No. 522 of 1991 for assessment year 1981-82: “ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ITAT is right in law in upholding the order of the ld CIT(A) who deleted the penalty of Rs.1,12,294/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of he Income- tax Act, 1961?”

2.

Learned counsel for the revenue states that the issue has been settled under 'Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme' for the assessment year in I.T.R. No. 160 of 1999 [2] question, as per Certificate dated 25.2.1999 issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana under Section 90(2) read with Section 91 of the Finance Act No.2 of 1998. 3. In view of above, this reference is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous, as prayed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) August 28, 2009

JUDGE raghav

I.T.R. No. 160 of 1999 [3]

I.T.R. No. 160 of 1999 [4]

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 →