C.I.T.PATIALA vs. M/S JIWAN SINGH PARSHOTAM DASS PATIALA

PDF · subscribers
ITR/152/1989HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01022524198917 January 2007Bench: MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the questions referred were answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal had recorded a finding that the assessee had neither concealed income nor furnished inaccurate particulars thereof, which would bring the case within the ambit of Section 271(1)(c) for penalty imposition. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was found to have levied the penalty without any basis. The Court noted that the counsel for the revenue could not point out any material on record to demonstrate that the Tribunal's findings were perverse. The Court emphasized that if a second view is possible on the facts found by the Tribunal, it does not make the Tribunal's particular view perverse or impossible. Therefore, the penalty was not exigible. The reference was disposed of accordingly.

What were the facts?

This case involves a reference to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) concerning the assessment year 1970-71. The dispute centers on a penalty imposed on the assessee, M/s Jiwan Singh Parshotam Dass, Patiala, under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT had previously set aside this penalty. The revenue is challenging the ITAT's order dated January 25, 1979, passed in I.T.A. No. 197 of 1976-77. The core of the dispute lies in whether the assessee had concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars, which would justify the penalty.

What were the issues?

The High Court was asked to decide two questions of law referred by the ITAT: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there is any legal or admissible evidence on record to support the ITAT's finding that the assessee had disclosed the source along with an estimated income therefrom in a so-called earlier return, whereas there was no mention of it in the duplicate return subsequently filed by the assessee? (This question turns on the interpretation of evidence and the facts found by the Tribunal). 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that penalty under Section 271(1) was not exigible? (This question turns on the interpretation and applicability of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Contentions: Assessee: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. Revenue: The counsel for the revenue could not point out any material on record to enable the Court to hold that the ITAT's findings were perverse. The revenue implicitly argued that the ITAT's decision was not supported by evidence and that the penalty was rightly levied.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

I.T.R.

N o. 152 of 1989

-1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.R.

N o. 152 of 1989

Date of decision: 17.1.2007 The Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala ...Petitioner Versus M/S Jiwan Singh Parshotam Dass, Patiala ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr.Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the revenue. **** RAJESH BINDAL, J. Following questions of law have been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandgiarh(for short 'the Tribunal') arising out of its order dated 25.1.1979 passed in I.T.A.No. 197 of 1976-77, in respect of the assessment year 1970-71:- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case there is any legal or admissible evidence on the record to support the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the assessee had disclosed the source alongwith an estimated income there from in a so called earlier return where as admittedly there was no mention of it in the duplicate return subsequently filed by it? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that penalty under section 271(1) was not exigible?

I.T.R.

N o. 152 of 1989

-2- *** The dispute in the present case pertains to levy of penalty imposed upon the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for short 'the Act'). The penalty was ultimately set aside by the Tribunal by recording a finding that the assessee had neither concealed the income nor furnished inaccurate particulars thereof so as to bring it within the ambit of section 271(1) ( c) of the Act for the imposition of penalty. Counsel for the revenue could not point out any material on record, which could enable this Court to hold that the findings recorded by the Tribunal, to the effect that the assessee had neither concealed the income nor furnished inaccurate particulars thereof, are perverse. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was found to have levied the penalty without any basis. Merely if a second view is possible on the facts found by the Tribunal, the Tribunal having taking a particular view, this Court does not find the same to be perverse or impossible. Accordingly, the questions referred are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reference is disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge January 17,2007 (M.M.Kumar) Pka Judge

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 →