COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AMRITSAR vs. SHIV SHAKTI RICE AND GENERAL MILLS BATALA

ITR/57/1994HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01024715199427 October 2006Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal was correct in cancelling the penalty levied under section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court relied on its own previous judgment in Income-Tax Officer v. Kaysons India (2000) 246 ITR 489. The reasoning was that section 271B applies to a default or failure to file the return along with the audit report on or before the specified date. In the present case, the assessee had obtained the audit report in accordance with section 44AB. Although the return was filed late (on December 31, 1990, instead of by November 30, 1990), it was filed under sub-section (4) of section 139 and was duly accompanied by the audit report. The Court found that there was no default of not furnishing the audit report along with a non-existent return, as the return under sub-section (1) of section 139 could have been filed up to November 30, 1990. Therefore, the penalty was not leviable. The question of law was answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income-tax, Amritsar (the Revenue) has filed an Income Tax Reference (ITR) No. 57 of 1994 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The reference arises from an order dated 17.12.1992 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar Bench, in I.T.A. No.1150(ASR)/1991. The assessment year in question is 1986-87. The dispute pertains to a penalty of Rs.66,144/- levied under section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ITAT had cancelled this penalty. The High Court is asked to decide a question of law referred by the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has been correct in law in cancelling the penalty of Rs.66,144/- levied under section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of assessment year 1986-87? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the reasoning of the High Court implies that the assessee contended that the penalty under section 271B was not leviable. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through Dr. N.L. Sharda, Advocate, sought to argue that the penalty under section 271B was correctly levied. The High Court's reference indicates the Revenue's position was that the assessee had committed a default warranting the penalty.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271B,Section 44AB,Section 139

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.57 of 1994 Date of decision: 27.10.2006 The Commissioner of Income-tax, Amritsar. -----Applicant Vs. M/s Shiv Shakti Rice & General Mills, Batala. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Dr. N.L. Sharda, Advocate for the revenue. -----

ORDER: 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 17.12.1992 in I.T.A. No.1150(ASR)/1991 in respect of assessment year 1986-87:- “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has been correct in law in cancelling the penalty of Rs.66,144/- levied under section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of assessment year 1986-87?” We find that the issue stands covered against the revenue by the judgment of this Court in Income-Tax Officer v. Kaysons India (2000) 246 ITR

489.

After considering the relevant provisions, this Court observed at page 492:- “It is, therefore, evident that the default or failure to file the return along with the audit report on or before th

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 271B

All 1,993 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →