C.I.T. BIKANER vs. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI GHARSANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/153/2014HC RajasthanRJHC01026875201410 May 20161 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court reasoned that it had previously dismissed appeals by the Revenue involving identical questions against the ITAT's common order that deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Given that the additions on which the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was imposed had already been deleted by the ITAT and this deletion was upheld by the High Court in prior proceedings, the order impugned, which affirmed the deletion of the penalty, did not warrant any interference. The ratio decidendi is that a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained if the underlying additions to income have been deleted and such deletion has attained finality. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue has filed this appeal against the order dated 24.2.14 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench. The ITAT had affirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] which deleted the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was related to additions made by the Assessing Officer. The High Court noted that appeals by the Revenue involving identical questions against the ITAT's common order deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer had already been dismissed by the Court. Therefore, the order impugned, which related to the deletion of penalty concerning additions already deleted, did not warrant interference.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in affirming the deletion of penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the additions on which the penalty was based had already been deleted. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. However, the ITAT's order, which was affirmed, deleted the penalty. The High Court's reasoning implies that since the additions were deleted, the penalty thereon was also unsustainable. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was validly imposed. The High Court's decision was influenced by its prior dismissal of Revenue's appeals against the deletion of the primary additions, suggesting the Revenue's argument for upholding the penalty was not accepted in light of the deleted additions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Gharsana (D. B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.153/2014) Date of Order : 10.5.16 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. K.K. Bissa, for the appellant. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.2.14 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, whereby the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)], deleting the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short “the Act”), has been affirmed. 3. The appeals involving identical question preferred by the Revenue against the common order passed by the ITAT, deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer, stand dismissed by this Court vide order dated 26.4.16 passed in D.B.Income Tax Appeal No.47/13 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Raisinghnagar) & other connected appeals, and therefore, the order impugned passed by the ITAT deleting the penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act, relating to the addition made by the Assessing Officer, which already stands deleted, does not warrant any interference by this Court. 4. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed. Vij82 (KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA), J. (SANGEET LODHA), J.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →