C I T, JALANDHAR vs. M/S CINE PAYAL, JALANDHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITR/43/1997HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01035410199729 November 2006Bench: MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 29.11.2006, decided to remand the matter to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for a fresh decision. This decision was made based on a statement by the learned counsel for the revenue. The counsel fairly stated that for the assessment year in question, the quantum proceedings in the assessee's own case had been remanded to the Tribunal by an order of the High Court dated 02.11.2006 in I.T. R. No.48A of 1997. Therefore, the High Court found it appropriate to have the penalty issue decided afresh by the ITAT in light of the decision on the quantum issue. The operative direction was to remand the matter to the ITAT. No specific finding was given on the legality of the penalty cancellation itself, as the case was sent back for reconsideration.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar (the revenue) has filed an Income Tax Reference (ITR) No. 43 of 1997 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The reference arises from an order dated 30.07.1993 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar Bench, in I.T.A. No.508(ASR)/1989 concerning the assessment year 1983-84. The dispute pertains to the cancellation of a penalty of Rs. 60,830 imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the revenue against M/s Cine Payal, Jalandhar (the assessee). The High Court was asked to decide a question of law regarding the ITAT's decision to cancel the penalty.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following question of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. I.T.A.T. is right in law in cancelling the penalty imposed at Rs.60,830/- under sec. 271 (1) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? Contentions: Revenue: The revenue sought to uphold the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c). Assessee: The assessee sought to uphold the ITAT's order cancelling the penalty. The judgment does not explicitly detail the arguments made by each side before the High Court, other than the revenue's counsel making a statement regarding the quantum proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COU RT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.R. No.43 of 1997 Date of decision: 29.11.2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar. ---Applicant Vs. M/s Cine Payal, Jalandhar. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Dr. N.L. Sharda, Advocate for the revenue. Mr. A.C. Jain, Advocate for the assessee. ----- ORDER: Following question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, arising out of its order dated 30.07.1993 in I.T.A. No.508(ASR)/1989 in respect of assessment year 1983-84:- “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. I.T.A.T. is right in law in cancelling the penalty imposed at Rs.60,830/- under sec. 271 (1) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?” Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that for the assessment year in question, in assessee’s own case, in quantum proceedings, the matter has been remanded to the Tribunal vide order of this Court dated 02.11.2006 in I.T. R. No.48A of 1997.

In view of above statement, the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in the light of decision on quantum issue. The reference is disposed of accordingly. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE November 29, 2006 ( RAJESH BINDAL ) ashwani JUDGE

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 →