K.U.M.S.F and V,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. I.T.O.WARD-2,SRIGANGANAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/116/2011HC RajasthanRJHC01010567201005 May 20172 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 3.8.2009. The Court restored the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The reasoning is based on a prior judgment delivered on the same day in DB Income Tax Appeal No.122/2011, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Grain), Sriganganagar v. I.T.O. Ward-2, Sriganganagar. The principle derived from this judgment is that if the claim is debatable and there is no finding of false or incorrect accounts, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) may not be sustainable. The operative direction is to set aside the ITAT's order and restore the Commissioner's order.

What were the facts?

The appeal is filed by Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sriganganagar (the assessee) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had restored a penalty imposed upon the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contends that the claim made was debatable and there was no finding of false or incorrect accounts. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves an order by the Commissioner of Income Tax, which was set aside by the ITAT, and the present appeal challenges the ITAT's decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in restoring the penalty imposed upon the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) when the claim of the assessee was a debatable one and there was no finding that the assessee submitted false or incorrect accounts within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c)? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the claim made was debatable and that the ITAT erred in restoring the penalty without a finding that the assessee submitted false or incorrect accounts as required by Section 271(1)(c). Revenue's Contentions: The revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 116 / 2011 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, (Fruit & Vegetable), Sriganganagar ----Appellant Versus I.T.O.Ward-2, Sriganganagar ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K.Bissa _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment 05/05/2017

The substantial question of law under adjudication in this appeal is as follows:- “Whether the Tribunal was justified in restoring the penalty imposed upon the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) when the claim of the assessee was a debatable one and there was no finding that assessee submitted false or incorrect accounts within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c)?” The question has already been examined and answered today itself in DB Income Tax Appeal No.122/2011, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Grain), Sriganganagar v. I.T.O. Ward-2, Sriganganagar.

(2 of 2) [ITA-116/2011]

This appeal is also allowed in terms of the judgment given in DB Income Tax Appeal No.122/2011, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Grain), Sriganganagar v. I.T.O. Ward-2, Sriganganagar. The order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 3.8.2009 is set aside. The order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax stands restored. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. MathuriaKK/PS

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 →