COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,LDH vs. M/S NATIONAL PICTURE CORP SOCIETY CINEMA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/24/2002HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01041452200229 March 2016Bench: THE TAXING OFFICER,MR. JUSTICE SATPAL2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The appeal was dismissed as not pressed. The revenue's counsel submitted that in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 read with Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, the revenue did not wish to press the appeal as the tax effect involved was less than ₹20 lacs. The revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein. The Court granted liberty as prayed for and clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. The legal issue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No decision was made on the merits of the penalty deletion.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana (appellant-revenue) against an order dated 8.6.2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench. The Tribunal's order pertained to ITA Nos. 501/Chandi/91 and 369/Chandi/94 for the assessment year 1983-84. The dispute involved the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against M/s National Picture Corporation, Society Cinema, Ludhiana (respondent-assessee). The revenue sought to challenge the Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the evidence on record was insufficient for the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that penalties levied by both the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) were unsustainable due to the Assessing Officer's omission to record satisfaction in words that the assessee had concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income in the assessment order. 3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) in view of the facts and circumstances. The revenue's contentions were not explicitly detailed as the appeal was not pressed. The assessee's contentions were also not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No. 24 of 2002 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 24 of 2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.03.2016 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana .......Appellant Versus M/s National Picture Corporation, Society Cinema, Ludhiana ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the appellant. RAJESH BINDAL,J. This appeal has been filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), against the order dated 8.6.2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (SMC), in ITA Nos.501/Chandi/91 and 369/Chandi/94, for the assessment year 1983-84, raising the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that evidence on record is not sufficient for the levy of penalty u/s 27 (1) ( c)? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that both the REEMA SAINI 2016.04.04 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

ITA No. 24 of 2002 (O&M) -2- penalties levied by the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are not sustainable because the Assessing Officer has omitted to record satisfaction in words that the assessee has concealed the income/furnished inaccurate particulars of income in the assessment order? (3) Whether in view of the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the penalty u/s 271 (1) (c )? Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that in view of circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 read with circular No.279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, he does not wish to press the present appeal, as the tax effect involved is less than ` 20 lacs. However, he prays that liberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein. Dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. It is however, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not be taken as affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. The legal issue as claimed by the revenue is left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. (RAJESH BINDAL)

JUDGE (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU) 29.03.2016 JUDGE reema REEMA SAINI 2016.04.04 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

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 →