C.I.T. PATIALA vs. M/S GANESH RICE MILLS BARNALA
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the question of law referred to it had been rendered infructuous. This was because the Revenue's appeal against the ITAT's decision in the quantum appeal (regarding the addition of Rs. 2,42,577) had already been decided against the Revenue by a Division Bench of the High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ganesh Rice Mills, (2006) 280 ITR 409. As a consequence of the quantum reference being decided against the Revenue, the present reference concerning the penalty became moot. Therefore, the reference was dismissed as infructuous. The specific finding on the exigibility of penalty in light of the quashed addition was not adjudicated on merits due to the subsequent development.
What were the facts?
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala (Revenue) filed an Income Tax Reference (ITR) No. 73 of 1995 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, challenging an order dated 21.7.1994 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench. The ITAT had deleted a penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1983-84. The penalty was imposed based on an addition of Rs. 2,42,577. The Revenue's appeal against the ITAT's decision in the quantum appeal (regarding the addition) was pending before the High Court.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) on the ground that the same was not exigible since the addition on the basis of which penalty was imposed has been quashed by the ITAT, whereas the order of the ITAT in quantum appeal has not been accepted by the Revenue and is being contested in R.A. u/s 256(1)? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the ITAT was not right in deleting the penalty. The penalty was levied under Section 271(1)(c) based on an addition made by the Assessing Officer. Although the ITAT had quashed the addition in the quantum appeal, the Revenue had not accepted this decision and was contesting it before the High Court. Therefore, the penalty should not have been deleted as the underlying addition was still under dispute.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT M.M. KUMAR, J (Oral) Following question of law, arising out of order dated 21.7.1994, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, in I.T.A. No. 1164/Chandi/89, in respect of assessment year 1983-84, has been referred for opinion of this Court:- “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) on the ground that the same was not exigible since the addition on the basis of which penalty was imposed has been quashed by the ITAT whereas the order of the ITAT in quantum appeal has not been I.T.R. No. 73 of 1995 accepted by the Revenue and is being contested in R.A. u/s 256(1)?” It may be mentioned at the outset that the question with regard to deletion of addition of amount of Rs. 2,42,577/-, had been referred by the Tribunal to this Court in R.A. No. 5/Chandi/94 and the levy of penalty was consequential to the quantum appeal. The aforementioned question in the quantum proceedings has been decided against the revenue by a Division Bench of this Court in the case reported as Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ganesh Rice Mills, (2006) 280 ITR 409. As a consequence of decision of quantum reference against the revenue, the instant reference has been rendered infructuous and the same is dismissed as such. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RAJESH BINDAL) May 9, 2007 JUDGE Pkapoor 2
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026