M/S JAGIR SINGH BALRAJ KUMAR vs. C.I.T.JALANDHAR NOW AMRITSAR

PDF · subscribers
ITR/23/2000HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01036437200003 November 2006Author: MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the question of law referred to it had already been decided by the same Court in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar Vs. M/S Harpal Singh Jaswant Singh, Malout, ITR No.146 of 1995, decided on 13.9.2006. In that precedent, the question was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Therefore, applying the same reasoning and precedent, the High Court answered the present reference against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The operative direction was to dispose of the reference accordingly, implying that no penalty was leviable under Section 271D on the disputed amounts.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, referred a question of law to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh concerning assessment year 1990-91. The dispute involved a penalty levied under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was imposed on amounts of Rs. 20,000 received from Raj Kumar and Rs. 20,000 received from Darshan Singh. The assessee contended that these amounts were in the nature of 'Amanat' and not loans or deposits as contemplated under Section 269SS of the Act. The High Court was asked to decide whether, on these facts and circumstances, any penalty was leviable.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, no penalty was leviable under Section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the amount of Rs. 20,000/- received by the assessee from Raj Kumar and Rs. 20,000/- received from Darshan Singh on the ground that those amounts were in the nature of 'Amanat' and not loan or deposit within the meaning of Section 269SS of the said Act? Assessee's contention: The amounts received were 'Amanat' and not loans or deposits, thus not falling under the purview of Section 269SS, and consequently, no penalty under Section 271D was leviable. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific contention for the Revenue regarding this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D,Section 269SS

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.R No.23 of 2000 Date of decision:3.11.2006 M/S Jagir Singh Balraj Kumar & Co. ...Petitioner Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Dr.N.L.Sharda, Advocate for the Revenue. ****

JUDGMENT Following question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar arising out of its order dated 10.5.1995 passed in I.T.A.No.155/ASR/1993, in respect of the assessment year 1990-91. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, no penalty was leviable under Sec.271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the amount of Rs.20,000/- received by the assessee from Raj Kumar and Rs.20,000/- received from Darshan Singh on the ground that those amounts were in the nature of 'Amanat' and not loan or deposit within the meaning of Section 269- SS of the said Act?”

The question has already been gone into by this Court in The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar Vs. M/S Harpal Singh Jaswant Singh, Malout, ITR No.146 of 1995, decided on 13.9.2006 and the question has been answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Accordingly, the question referred is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

The reference is disposed of. (Adarsh Kumar Goel)

Judge November 3, 2006 (Rajesh Bindal)

Pka Judge

More judgments on Section 271D

All 1,725 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →