Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sh. Shri Chand (Huf
High Court
08 Nov 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sh. Shri Chand (Huf
Date of order
08 Nov 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sh. Shri Chand (Huf, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: No.3948/Del/2009 for theassessment year 1996-97 proposing to raise following substantialquestions of law:- “I.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, Ld.
Decision: In view of above, this appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH.
I.T.A. No.495 of 2010 Date of decision: 8.11.2010
Commissioner of Income Tax.
Vs.
Sh. Shri Chand (HUF).
-----Appellant.
-----Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present:-Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocatefor the appellant.
---
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.
This appeal has been preferred by the assesseeunder Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “theAct”) against the order dated 15.12.2009 of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, New Delhi in I.T.A. No.3948/Del/2009 for theassessment year 1996-97 proposing to raise following substantialquestions of law:-
“I.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, Ld. ITAT was right in law in quashing the orderimposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961 by holding the addition in respect of whichpenalty has been levied stands deleted by theTribunal? case, Ld. ITAT was right in law in quashing the orderimposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961 by holding the addition in respect of whichpenalty has been levied stands deleted by theTribunal?
2.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, Ld. ITAT was right in deleting the penalty ordercase, Ld. ITAT was right in deleting the penalty order
and simultaneously by issuing directions that in casethe quantum addition is modified or set aside oraltered by the higher appellate authority, theDepartment shall be at a liberty to move anapplication to consider the matter afresh on merit inthe light of the final outcome of the quantum matterwithout giving specific direction to the AssessingOfficer to re-examine the penalty in case the quantumorder is restored?”
Learned counsel for the revenue is unable to disputethat identical matter being I.T.A. No.16 of 2010 CITv. FatehSingh (HUF)has been decided on 15.7.2010 by this Courtagainst the revenue.
In view of above, this appeal is dismissed.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE
November 08, 2010ashwani
( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE
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.