C.I.T. BIKANER vs. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, JETSAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/163/2014HC RajasthanRJHC01021941201411 April 20162 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law was involved in the appeal, warranting adjudication. The Court noted that the primary issue concerning the quantum of addition had already been dismissed by the High Court, upholding the ITAT's verdict. Furthermore, the Court took judicial notice of a co-ordinate bench's decision in a similar appeal (D.B. Income-Tax Appeal No.160/2014) which had dismissed the appeal on identical grounds. Consequently, the High Court concluded that the lis (dispute) involved in the present appeal no longer survived. The appeal was therefore dismissed. No specific finding on the merits of the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was made, as the appeal was disposed of on procedural and precedent grounds.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, challenging an order dated February 24, 2014, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had declined to confirm a penalty imposed on the assessee, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jetsar, under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appeal before the High Court concerned the penalty, as the primary issue regarding the quantum of addition had already been dismissed by the High Court, upholding the ITAT's decision. A co-ordinate bench of the High Court had previously dismissed an identical appeal (D.B. Income-Tax Appeal No.160/2014) involving the same assessee and a similar issue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a question of law is involved in the appeal requiring adjudication, given that the primary issue of the quantum of addition has already been dismissed by the High Court and the ITAT has declined to confirm the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The High Court's reasoning implies that the assessee would have benefited from the dismissal of the quantum addition and the subsequent decision on penalty. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue contended that the appeal under Section 260-A of the Act was maintainable and that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) should have been confirmed. However, the judgment focuses on the lack of a substantial question of law and the dismissal of a prior appeal on identical grounds.

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 JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL No.163/2014 Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner V/s. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jetsar Date of Judgment ::: 11.04.2016 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.LOHRA HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI Mr. K.K. Bissa, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Hargovind Chanda & Mr. Gajendra Singh Chouhan, for Income-tax Department. Appellant-Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'Act') to assail the impugned judgment and order dated 24th of February, 2014 passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), whereby the learned ITAT has declined to confirm penalty against the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, while considering the fact that appeal relating to issue of quantum of addition has already dismissed. The Revenue preferred an appeal before this Court in resepect of the qunatum of addition, but the same has already been dismissed by this Court upholding the verdict of ITAT. In totality, no question of law is involved in this appeal, requiring adjudication. It is also pertinent to note here that an appeal bearing No.D.B. Income-Tax Appeal No.160/2014 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner V/s. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sadulsahar, wherein identical question was involved has been dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench, by its order dated 19th of February, 2015. 2 In view thereof, now, in our considered opinion, lis involved in this appeal no more survives and as such appeal merits rejection. While taking note of facts narrated supra and the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the instant appeal fails and same is, hereby, dismissed. (DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI),J. (P.K.LOHRA),J.

a.asopa/- item No.9

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 →