Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bikaner v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kesrisinghpur
High Court
18 Feb 2015 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · rhcjodh240618
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bikaner v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kesrisinghpur
Date of order
18 Feb 2015
Assessment year(s)
2008-09
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bikaner v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kesrisinghpur, the High Court (2015) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal is dismissed accordingly. [P.K.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
JUDGMENT
D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.165/2014
Commissioner of Income Tax, BikanerVs.Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kesrisinghpur
DATE OF JUDGMENT :: 18.2.2015
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHURHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Mr. KK Bissa, for the appellant
...
By accepting an appeal, the additions in income of therespondent-Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti for the assessment year 2008-09 were deleted by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. TheAssessing Officer subsequent thereto imposed penalty upon theassessee as per provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income TaxAct, 1961 by taking into consideration the additions made. Thepenalty imposed was affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by the order impugned dated25.2.2014 deleted the penalty imposed by arriving at the conclusionthat there is no question of imposing any penalty as per provisionsof Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as no taxableincome exists.
The penalty as per the provision aforesaid can be imposed inthe event of concealment of income or on furnishing inaccurateparticulars of income. In the case in hand, as already stated
taxable liability of the respondent-assessee has already beendeleted, therefore, we do not find any wrong in deleting the penaltytoo. The appeal, as such, does not involve any substantial questionof law that may warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
[P.K. LOHRA], J. , J.
Sanjay
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.