COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIAN OIL PANIPAT POWER CONSORTIUM LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 1482 / 2010HC Delhi28 September 20102 pages
For Petitioner: SANJEEV SABHARWAL
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that since the quantum appeals for the Assessment Years 2001-02 and 2002-03 had already been dismissed by the Court, the present appeals challenging the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(C) of the Act were consequently dismissed. The reasoning was that the penalty is consequential to the assessment of income, and once the quantum of income is not in dispute or has been decided against the assessee in a manner that leads to the dismissal of the quantum appeal, the penalty appeal would also stand dismissed. No order as to costs was made.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging a common order dated September 29, 2009, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The Tribunal's order pertained to Assessment Years 2001-02 and 2002-03. The appeals before the High Court concerned the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(C) of the Act. The Revenue's counsel conceded that the quantum appeals for the same assessment years had already been dismissed by the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals filed by the Revenue against the Tribunal's order imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are maintainable, given that the quantum appeals for the same assessment years have already been dismissed by the High Court. Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's counsel fairly submitted that the present appeals pertain to the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(C) of the Act and that the quantum appeals for these assessment years had already been dismissed by the High Court vide order dated February 26, 2009.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

#12,11 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ ITA 1483/2010

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate

versus

INDIAN OIL PANIPAT POWER CONSORTIUM LTD.

..... Respondent

Through: None

AND

+ ITA 1482/2010

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate

versus

INDIAN OIL PANIPAT POWER CONSORTIUM LTD.

..... Respondent

Through: None

Date of Decision: 28th September, 2010

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

1.

Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

MANMOHAN, J

1.

Present appeals have been filed under Section 260A of Income 2010:DHC:4856-DB

Tax Act, 1961 (in short „the Act‟) challenging the common order dated 29th September, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short “Tribunal”) in ITA Nos. 3366/Del/2009 and 3367/Del/2009, for the Assessment Years 2001-02 and 2002-03 respectively. 2. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned counsel for Revenue fairly submitted at the Bar that the present two appeals pertain to imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(C) of the Act and the quantum appeals with regard to these assessment years have already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 26th February, 2009 in ITA Nos. 1156 & 1157/2007. 3. Since the quantum appeals have already been dismissed, the present appeals challenging imposition of penalty have to be and are accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.

MANMOHAN, J

CHIEF JUSTICE SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 ng 2010:DHC:4856-DB

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 →