PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SH. SURINDER KUMAR GUPTA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/905/2017HC DelhiDLHC01443544201730 October 2017Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that no substantial question of law was involved in the appeal. The Court noted that the ITAT had followed the High Court's own prior ruling in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-19 v. Neeraj Jindal. The Court observed that the judgment in Neeraj Jindal was also rendered in the context of a search conducted within the same group of companies, where the assessee in the present case was a Director. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the ITAT's decision based on the established precedent. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-19, appealed a decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal concerned a penalty imposed under Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a search and seizure operation initiated under Section 153A. The assessee, Sh. Surinder Kumar Gupa, argued that Explanation 5 to Section 271(1) precluded the levy of penalty in this specific case. The ITAT had relied on a previous ruling by the Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-19 v. Neeraj Jindal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a substantial question of law arises for consideration in an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning a penalty imposed under Section 271, when the ITAT followed a High Court ruling on the applicability of Explanation 5 to Section 271(1) in the context of a search under Section 153A? Assessee's contentions: The assessee contended that Explanation 5 to Section 271(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was applicable, thereby preventing the levy of penalty. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue appealed the ITAT's decision, presumably disagreeing with the application of Explanation 5 to Section 271(1) or the ITAT's interpretation of the law. The judgment does not explicitly detail the Revenue's arguments beyond their appeal of the ITAT's order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 271,Section 271(1),Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ ITA 905/2017

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel for Revenue.

versus

SH. SURINDER KUMAR GUPA

..... Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

O R D E R %

30.10.2017

The question involved in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the penalty imposed under Section 271, upon conclusion of search procedure pursuant to notice issued under Section 153A. The assessee had urged that in view of explanation 5 to Section 271(1), penalty could not be levied in this case. The ITAT had followed the ruling of this Court, in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-19 v. Neeraj Jindal [2017] 393 ITR 1 (Delhi). This Court notices that the judgment in Neeraj Jindal (supra) also was in the context of search in the same group of companies in which the assessee was the Director. As a consequence, the Court holds that there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

OCTOBER 30, 2017/kks

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

More judgments on Section 271

All 211 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →