C.I.T. BIKANER vs. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI GRAIN

PDF · subscribers
ITA/3/2014HC RajasthanRJHC01013182201426 April 20162 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in these appeals. This is because the appeals preferred by the Revenue against the ITAT's order deleting additions made by the Assessing Officer during the relevant assessment years had already been dismissed by the High Court. Consequently, if the additions themselves are not sustainable, then no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied. The court found no basis to interfere with the ITAT's order affirming the deletion of the penalty. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals.

What were the facts?

These appeals by the Revenue are directed against a common order dated July 15, 2013, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench. The ITAT had affirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)], which had deleted the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals before the High Court relate to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samitis in Sri Ganganagar, Raisinghnagar, Gajsinghpur, and Padampur. The High Court noted that appeals by the Revenue against the ITAT's deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer for the relevant assessment years had already been dismissed by the court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court has to decide a substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order affirming the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the additions forming the basis of the penalty have already been deleted by the ITAT and the Revenue's appeals against such deletions have been dismissed by the High Court. Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. Revenue's Contention: Not recorded. The judgment states that since the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted and the Revenue's appeals against those deletions were dismissed, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable. This implies the Revenue's appeals are being dismissed on this ground.

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
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
1.

(D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3/14)

2.

(D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4/14)

3.

(D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.5/14)

4.

(D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.6/14) Dated:- 26th April, 2016. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr.K.K.Bissa, for the appellants. Mr.Rajesh Choudhary, for the respondents. BY THE COURT :- (PER HON'BLE MR.SANGEET LODHA,J.)

1.

These appeals are directed against the common order dated 15.7.13 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, whereby the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)], deleting the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), has been 2 affirmed.

2.

The appeals preferred by the Revenue against the order passed by the ITAT, deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer during the relevant assessment year stand dismissed by this court today vide order passed in D.B.Income Tax Appeal No.47/13 “Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Raisinghnagar” and other connected appeals relating to the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer in respect of the assessees herein, and therefore, no penalty is leviable under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

3.

In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this court in the present appeals.

4.

Accordingly, the appeals are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA),J. (SANGEET LODHA),J. Aditya/

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 →