K.U.M.S.KESRISINGHPUR vs. I.T.O.WARD-2,SRIGANGANAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/105/2011HC RajasthanRJHC01043750200905 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 for this decision is that the substantial question of law concerning the justification of the Tribunal in restoring the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) when the claim was debatable and no finding of false accounts existed, was examined and answered in a connected appeal, DB Income Tax Appeal No.122/2011. The principle derived is that if a claim is debatable, the imposition or restoration of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) may not be justified without a finding of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The operative direction is to set aside the ITAT's order and restore the Commissioner's order.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kesrisinghpur, is in appeal before the High Court against an 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 appeal arises from the assessment proceedings concerning the assessee. The specific assessment year(s) are not explicitly mentioned in the provided text. The procedural history involves an order by the Commissioner of Income Tax, which was subsequently modified by the ITAT, and this ITAT order is now under challenge.

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)? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 271(1)(c)). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argues that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) should not have been restored because the claim made was debatable, and there was no finding of false or incorrect accounts submitted by the assessee. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in this particular appeal. However, the fact that the penalty was imposed and subsequently restored by the ITAT implies the revenue likely supported the imposition and restoration of the penalty.

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. 105 / 2011 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kesrisinghpur ----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-105/2011]

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 →