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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/164/2014HC RajasthanRJHC01026908201419 February 2015Author: GOVIND MATHUR,P.K. LOHRA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that there was no question of imposing any penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, because no taxable income existed for the assessee. The reasoning was that the taxable liability of the respondent-assessee had already been deleted by the ITAT. Therefore, the Tribunal found no error in deleting the penalty. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as it did not involve any substantial question of law warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had previously deleted additions to the income of the respondent, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, for the assessment year 2008-09. Following this deletion, the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on the original additions. The Commissioner of Income Tax affirmed this penalty. The ITAT, in its impugned order dated 25.02.2014, subsequently deleted the penalty. The Revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner, has filed the present appeal against this order of the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when additions to income had initially been made by the Assessing Officer. The Assessee's contention, as inferred from the Tribunal's reasoning, is that no penalty can be imposed under Section 271(1)(c) if no taxable income exists. The Revenue's contention, implied by their appeal, is that the penalty was validly imposed based on the initial additions made by the Assessing Officer, irrespective of the subsequent deletion of those additions by the ITAT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.164/2014 DATE OF ORDER :: 19.2.2015 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA Mr. K.K. Bissa ] Mr. Hargovind Chanda ], for the appellant ... By accepting an appeal, the additions in income of the respondent-Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti for the assessment year 2008-09 were deleted by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Assessing Officer subsequent thereto imposed penalty upon the assessee as per provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by taking into consideration the additions made. The penalty imposed was affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by the order impugned dated 25.2.2014 deleted the penalty imposed by arriving at the conclusion that there is no question of imposing any penalty as per provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as no taxable income exists. The penalty as per the provision aforesaid can be imposed in the event of concealment of income or on furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In the case in hand, as already stated taxable liability of the respondent-assessee has already been deleted, therefore, we do not find any wrong in deleting the penalty

2 too. The appeal, as such, does not involve any substantial question of law that may warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction.

The appeal is dismissed accordingly. [P.K. LOHRA], J. [GOVIND MATHUR], J. a.asopa/-

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 →