C.I.T. BIKANER vs. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, PADAMPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/6/2014HC RajasthanRJHC01022657201426 April 20162 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that since the appeals preferred by the Revenue against the additions made by the Assessing Officer during the relevant assessment years had already been dismissed by the court in a connected matter (D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.47/13 and connected appeals), no penalty is leviable under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Consequently, the court found that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals.

What were the facts?

These appeals by the Revenue are directed against a common order dated July 15, 2013, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench. The ITAT had affirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) which deleted the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals relate to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samitis in Sri Ganganagar, Raisinghnagar, Gajsinghpur, and Padampur for unspecified assessment years. The High Court noted that appeals by the Revenue against additions made by the Assessing Officer for the relevant assessment years had already been dismissed by the court in a connected matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court has to decide substantial questions of law arising from the ITAT's order affirming the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the additions forming the basis of the penalty have already been deleted by the High Court in connected appeals. Assessee's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment. However, the Revenue is appealing the ITAT's order which deleted the penalty. The High Court's reasoning implies that the Revenue's appeals against the underlying additions were dismissed, which would render the penalty unsustainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER VS. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI(GRAIN), SRI GANGANAGAR (D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3/14) 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER VS. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, RAISINGHNAGAR (D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4/14) 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER VS. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, GAJSINGHPUR (D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.5/14) 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER VS. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, PADAMPUR (D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.6/14) Dated:- 26th April, 2016. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr.K.K.Bissa, for the appellants. Mr.Rajesh Choudhary, for the respondents. BY THE COURT :- (PER HON'BLE MR.SANGEET LODHA,J.) 1. These appeals are directed against the common order dated 15.7.13 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, whereby the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [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

2 affirmed. 2. The appeals preferred by the Revenue against the order passed by the ITAT, deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer during the relevant assessment year stand dismissed by this court today vide order passed in D.B.Income Tax Appeal No.47/13 “Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Raisinghnagar” and other connected appeals relating to the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer in respect of the assessees herein, and therefore, no penalty is leviable under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this court in the present appeals. 4. Accordingly, the appeals are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA),J. (SANGEET LODHA),J. Aditya/

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 →