C.I.T.JDR. vs. M/S BHAI SHAMSHER SINGH AND CO.

PDF · subscribers
ITR/139/1986HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01008723198616 December 2008Bench: MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that a previous reference (ITR No. 16 of 1985) had been made regarding the same assessment year, and this Court had remitted the matter back to the Tribunal because the Judicial Member had left the question of limitation undecided. The High Court was informed that the quantum proceedings have since been decided against the assessee. Therefore, the High Court found it appropriate to remand the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on the issue of the imposition of penalty. The reference is disposed of with this direction. The operative direction is to remand the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on the penalty issue.

What were the facts?

This case involves a reference from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana concerning a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty amount was Rs. 23,000. The assessment itself was pending adjudication at the time the ITAT confirmed the cancellation of the penalty by the CIT(A). A previous reference (ITR No. 16 of 1985) for the same assessment year was decided by the High Court on March 20, 1989, remitting the matter back to the Tribunal. The High Court noted that the Judicial Member of the Tribunal had left the question of limitation undecided, leading to the remission. The parties now state that the quantum proceedings have been decided against the assessee, necessitating a decision on the penalty.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A) who cancelled the penalty of Rs. 23,000 imposed under Section 271(1)(c), especially when the assessment itself was pending adjudication on a reference under Section 256(1) filed by the revenue? Assessee's Contention: Not explicitly recorded in the provided text. The judgment focuses on the procedural history and the subsequent remand. Revenue's Contention: Not explicitly recorded in the provided text. The revenue filed the reference, indicating a disagreement with the ITAT's order confirming the cancellation of the penalty.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 256(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITR No.139 of 1986 Date of decision: 16.12.2008 The CIT, Jalandhar -----Applicant Vs. M/s Bhai Shamsher Singh and sons, Mukatsar --Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present: Ms. Savita Saxena, Standing Counsel for the revenue. Mr. Rohit Sud, Advocate for the assessee. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. On 16.10.2008, following order was passed:- “The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench has referred following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act for opinion of this Court:- ‘Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is right in law in confirming the order of CIT(A) who cancelled penalty of Rs.23000/-

ITR No.139 of 1986 imposed under section 271(1) (c) specially when the assessment itself is pending adjudication on reference under section 256 (1) filed by the revenue?” Counsel for the parties state that in the same assessment year, another reference was made in respect of the assessee being ITR No.16 of 1985, which has been decided by this Court on 20.3.1989.

The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment, initiated penalty proceedings. Before the Tribunal, there was difference of opinion between two members and based on opinion of majority, proceedings were held to be barred by limitation.

Question referred to this Court, inter alia, was whether the order of the Tribunal was based on opinion of majority.

This Court held that since the Judicial Member has left the question of limitation undecided, the question to be decided by the third member was whether the question of limitation was required to be decided or not. The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal. 2

ITR No.139 of 1986

In view of above, it would be appropriate that decision of the Tribunal on remand is ascertained and decision on this reference would be necessary only if in quantum proceedings, the decision is against the assessee.

Adjourned to 22.10.2008.” Learned counsel for the parties state that in quantum proceedings, decision was against the assessee and thus, the question whether imposition of penalty should be upheld, will have to be decided by the Tribunal on merits. Accordingly, we remand the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on the issue of imposition of penalty. The reference is disposed of. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge December 16, 2008 (L.N.Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 3

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 →