C.I.T DELHI vs. SATYA PAL

PDF · subscribers
ITR/91/1990HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01021649199027 November 2006Author: MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court returned the reference unanswered. The court noted that the quantum of assessment for the assessment year 1946-47 had also been referred to the court. On a previous date, the revenue was given an opportunity to provide the necessary particulars of the quantum matter, failing which the reference would be returned unanswered. On the date of the decision, the revenue's counsel stated that despite best efforts, the particulars of the quantum matter could not be traced. Consequently, in view of the inability of the revenue to provide the essential details linking the penalty to the quantum assessment, the reference could not be adjudicated upon its merits. No finding was reached on the correctness of the ITAT's decision regarding the penalty cancellation.

What were the facts?

The case involves a reference to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana concerning an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) order dated August 18, 1979, for the assessment year 1946-47. The ITAT had cancelled a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 imposed under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi, filed the reference. The High Court noted that the quantum of assessment for the same year had also been referred to the court. On October 24, 2006, the court granted the revenue an opportunity to provide particulars of the quantum matter, failing which the reference would be returned unanswered. The revenue's counsel subsequently stated that despite efforts, the particulars of the quantum matter could not be traced.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law and justified in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 imposed under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1946-47? Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue sought to challenge the ITAT's decision to cancel the penalty. However, the judgment does not explicitly detail the revenue's arguments supporting this challenge. The primary difficulty for the revenue was the inability to provide particulars of the quantum assessment, which was intrinsically linked to the penalty imposition. The revenue's counsel was unable to trace these particulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

**** Date of Decision:27.11.2006 Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi .....Petitioner Vs. Satya Pal Virmani, ASR, Amritsar

.....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Dr. N.L.Sharda, Advocate for the revenue. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. The following question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court arising out of order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench `C' New Delhi in I.T.A. No.2433/64-65 dated 18.8.1979 in respect of assessment year 1946-47:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law and justified in cancelling the penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1946-47?” The matter pertains to the assessment year 1946-47. On 24.10.2006, following order was passed:- “From the statement of the case, we find that the case of the assessee relating to assessment of the quantum has been referred for opinion of this Court. Learned counsel for the Revenue is unable to give particulars thereof. In the interest of justice, we give one more opportunity to counsel for the Revenue to give the necessary particulars failing which the reference will be returned unanswered.

-2- Adjourned to 27.11.2006.” Learned counsel for the revenue states that in spite of best efforts, he has not been able to trace out the particulars of the quantum matter which, according to the statement of the case, stands referred to this Court. In view of the above, reference is returned unanswered.

( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE November 27, 2006 ( RAJESH BINDAL ) renu JUDGE

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 →