Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Jalandhar-I,...

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Jalandhar-I, Jalandhar v. M/S Indersons Leather (P) Ltd., A-6 Sport And Surgical

High Court 24 Aug 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Jalandhar-I, Jalandhar v. M/S Indersons Leather (P) Ltd., A-6 Sport And Surgical
Date of order
24 Aug 2009
Assessment year(s)
2001-02
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Jalandhar-I, Jalandhar v. M/S Indersons Leather (P) Ltd., A-6 Sport And Surgical, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 24, 2009pooja (DAYA CHAUDHARY)JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No

Decision: 5.The appeal is dismissed.

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 PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.A. No. 118 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 24.8.2009 Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar-I, Jalandhar ..........Appellant Versus M/s Indersons Leather (P) Ltd., A-6 Sport and Surgical ..........RespondentComplex, Jalandhar. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:-Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocatefor the appellant. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1.The revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260-A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar dated 12.9.2008 passedin ITA No. 50(ASR)/2008 for the assessment year 2001-02, proposing toraise following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case(having furnishing of inaccurate particulars of incomeestablished) the ITAT was right in law in deleting thepenalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961?” 2.The assessee made a claim declaring his income as businessincome while the Assessing Officer held the same to be income from houseproperty, which view has been upheld by the Tribunal. The Assessing I.T.A. No. 118 of 2009 (O&M) Officer also levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c), which was upheld bythe CIT(A). The Tribunal, however, held that the assessee was not guiltyof any concealment or giving inaccurate particulars and had raised adebatable issue. In such a situation, penalty was deleted. 3.We have heard learned counsel for the revenue. 4.In view of the finding of the Tribunal that assessee had notconcealed income nor furnished inaccurate particulars and had merelyraised a debatable issue, we are unable to hold that any substantialquestion of law arises. 5.The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 24, 2009pooja (DAYA CHAUDHARY)JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan