C.IT vs. M/Z ZAMINDARA AGENCIES

ITR/423/1995HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01032503199524 October 2006Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the amount involved in the dispute was negligible. Considering the circumstances of the case, the Court deemed it unnecessary to delve into the merits of the issue. Consequently, the reference was returned unanswered. The operative direction is that the reference is not answered on merits. The Court did not decide on the correctness of the Tribunal's direction regarding the commencement date for penalty computation.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Zamidara Agencies, Sirsa, failed to file its income tax return for the assessment year 1983-84 by the due date. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 6,364/- under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the late filing. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in its order dated 25.8.1990, directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the penalty by counting the delay from 1.10.1984, instead of 31.7.1983 (the original due date for filing the return). The Commissioner of Income Tax, Haryana, Rohtak (the revenue), has filed a reference to the High Court against this direction.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in directing the Assessing Officer to compute penalty under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, from 1.10.1984, on the ground that notice under Section 148 of the said Act was served on the assessee on 16.8.1984, as against from 31.7.1983, the due date for filing of return? The revenue's contention, as implied by filing the reference, is that the Tribunal erred in directing the penalty computation to commence from 1.10.1984, suggesting the delay should be calculated from the original due date of 31.7.1983. The revenue relies on the fact that the notice under Section 148 was served on 16.8.1984. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(a),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ITR No.423 of 1995 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITR No.423 of 1995 Date of decision:24.10.2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Haryana, Rohtak ....Petitioner versus M/s. Zamidara Agencies, Sirsa ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate, for the revenue.

JUDGMENT: Following question has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal'), arising out of its order dated 25.8.1990 in ITA No.962/Chandi/88, for the assessment year 1983-84:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in directing the Assessing Officer to compute penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from 1.10.1984 on the ground that notice under section 148 of the said Act was served on the assessee on 16.8.1984 as against from 31.7.1983, the due date for filing of return?””

The assessee failed to file return for the assessment year 1983- 84 in tim

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 →