CIT, JALANDHAR vs. M/S INDERSONS LEATHER(P) LTD. SUCHI, JALANDHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/118/2009HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084191200924 August 2009Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that in view of the Tribunal's finding that the assessee had not concealed income nor furnished inaccurate particulars, and had merely raised a debatable issue, no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order. The reasoning was that the Tribunal's factual determination on the absence of concealment or inaccurate particulars, and the classification of the issue as debatable, precluded interference by the High Court on the grounds of a substantial question of law. Consequently, the penalty deletion by the ITAT was upheld. The operative direction was the dismissal of the revenue's appeal.

What were the facts?

The revenue, Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar-I, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar Bench. The ITAT's order, dated September 12, 2008, pertained to ITA No. 50(ASR)/2008 for the assessment year 2001-02. The Assessing Officer (AO) had treated the assessee's declared business income as income from house property, a view upheld by the Tribunal. The AO also levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which was initially upheld by the CIT(A). However, the ITAT deleted this penalty.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, with furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income established, the ITAT was right in law in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the ITAT's decision, as noted in the facts, was that the assessee was not guilty of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars and had merely raised a debatable issue, justifying the deletion of the penalty. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income was established, and therefore, the ITAT erred in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The revenue sought to establish that a substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order.

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

(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: 24.8.2009 Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar-I, Jalandhar ..........Appellant Versus M/s Indersons Leather (P) Ltd., A-6 Sport and Surgical ..........Respondent Complex, Jalandhar. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate for the appellant. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral)

1.

The revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar dated 12.9.2008 passed in ITA No. 50(ASR)/2008 for the assessment year 2001-02, proposing to raise following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case (having furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income established) the ITAT was right in law in deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?”

2.

The assessee made a claim declaring his income as business income while the Assessing Officer held the same to be income from house property, which view has been upheld by the Tribunal. The Assessing (2) Officer also levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c), which was upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal, however, held that the assessee was not guilty of any concealment or giving inaccurate particulars and had raised a debatable issue. In such a situation, penalty was deleted.

3.

We have heard learned counsel for the revenue.

4.

In view of the finding of the Tribunal that assessee had not concealed income nor furnished inaccurate particulars and had merely raised a debatable issue, we are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises.

5.

The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 24, 2009

(DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No

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 →