C.I.T PATIALA vs. M/S UNICANS & SONICS LTD. CHD

ITR/38/1993HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01021938199303 May 2007Author: MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL,MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court returned the reference unanswered. The Court noted that the Revenue had sought time on multiple occasions to ascertain the status of proceedings after a remand by the ITAT. However, the Revenue was unable to trace the assessment record for the assessee, citing the age of the record and restructuring within the department in 2001. Consequently, as the necessary records could not be produced, the Court could not adjudicate on the question of law referred to it. No finding was reached on the merits of the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(a).

What were the facts?

This case concerns an Income Tax Reference (I.T.R. No. 38 of 1993) filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala (the Revenue) against M/s. Unicans & Sonics Ltd., Chandigarh (the Assessee). The reference arises from an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in I.T.A. No. 1319/Chandi/1991 dated May 5, 1993, pertaining to the assessment year 1986-87. The Revenue sought to ascertain the status of proceedings after a remand by the ITAT. Despite multiple adjournments and efforts, the Revenue was unable to trace the assessment record due to its age and departmental restructuring in 2001.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in setting aside penalty levied under Section 271(1)(a) for late filing of return? The Revenue contended that it was seeking to ascertain the status of proceedings after a remand order by the ITAT. The Assessee's contentions are not recorded in the judgment. The Revenue relied on a communication from the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax stating that the assessment record could not be traced due to its age and departmental restructuring.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.R. No. 38 of 1993 Date of Decision :3.5.2007 The Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala ...Applicant .

Versus M/s. Unicans & Sonics Ltd., Chandigarh ...Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present : Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Advocate for the Revenue M.M. KUMAR, J.

The following question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench arising out of order passed by it in I.T.A. No. 1319/Chandi/1991 dated May 5, 1993 for the assessment year 1986-87 :- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in setting aside penalty levied u/s 271(1)(a) for late filing of return?”

On 26.10.2006 learned counsel for the revenue sought time to find out about the status of proceedings after remand. On January 18, 2007 we had given last opportunity to seek the information. Thereafter, the matter was still adjourned on the written request made by the learned counsel for the revenue.

Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, learned counsel for the revenue has placed on the record a communication dated

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(a)

All 62 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(a) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →