THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JAGDISH & CO.

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 844 / 2005HC Delhi27 October 20051 pages
For Petitioner: DEEPAK SHUKLA
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court admitted the appeal and formulated a substantial question of law concerning the ITAT's deletion of a penalty under Section 158BFA(2) of the Income Tax Act, and whether this deletion was made in error by relying on Section 271(1)(c). The Court has not yet decided the merits of the appeal. The operative direction at this stage is the admission of the appeal and the formulation of the question of law. The Court has also directed the appellant (Revenue) to file the requisite number of paper books within three months. The appeal is listed for further hearing in due course. No finding has been reached on the penalty deletion itself.

What were the facts?

This matter concerns an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (the Revenue) against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessee is M/s Jagdish and Co. The appeal challenges the ITAT's decision to delete a penalty imposed under Section 158BFA(2) of the Income Tax Act. The procedural history indicates that the Revenue has filed this appeal before the High Court of Delhi, seeking to set aside the ITAT's order. The High Court has admitted the appeal and formulated a substantial question of law for determination.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT erred in law in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 158BFA(2) of the Income Tax Act while relying upon the provisions of Section 271(1)(c)? The Revenue's contention is that the ITAT's deletion of the penalty under Section 158BFA(2) was erroneous and that the Tribunal incorrectly relied on provisions of Section 271(1)(c) in doing so. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the assessee, M/s Jagdish and Co., in response to this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 158BFA(2),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . ITA 844/2005 . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. R.D. Jolly, Adv. with Mr. Deepak Shukla, Adv. versus . M/S JAGDISH and CO. ..... Respondent Through : None . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.CHATURVEDI . O R D E R 27.10.2005 . CM No.13034/2005 Heard. Allowed subject to just exceptions. CM No.13034/2005 disposed of. ITA No.844/2005 ADMIT. The following substantial question of law is formulated for determination : G€˜G€˜Whether ITAT was erred in law in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 158 BFA (2) of the Income Tax Act while relying upon the provisions of Section 271 (1) (C)?G€™G€˜ The appellant shall file within three months the requisite ITA No.844/2005 page 1 of 2 number of paper books in accordance with High Court Rules. Post for hearing in due course. . . . T.S. THAKUR, J . . B.N.CHATURVEDI, J OCTOBER 27, 2005 sa . ITA No.844/2005 page 2 of 2

More judgments on Section 158BFA(2)

All 71 judgments and leading authorities on Section 158BFA(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →