Case LawHigh Court › Ita/74/2000 Of M/S Raj Kumar And Brother...

Ita/74/2000 Of M/S Raj Kumar And Brothers v. Commissioner Of Income Tax Jalandhar

High Court 13 Jan 2020 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Ita/74/2000 Of M/S Raj Kumar And Brothers v. Commissioner Of Income Tax Jalandhar
Date of order
13 Jan 2020
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Ita/74/2000 Of M/S Raj Kumar And Brothers v. Commissioner Of Income Tax Jalandhar, the High Court (2020) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH ITA No.74 of 2000 (O&M)Date of decision : 13.01.2020 M/s Raj Kumar & Brothers ...... Appellant VeTSuU Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar & anr. ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARTHON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN... Present :Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocatefor the appellant. Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate withMr. Varun Issar, Advocatefor the respondents, ... AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) (This appeal has been filed against the order of the Tribunalreversing that of the Commissioner Income Tax and restoring a penaltywhich had been imposed by the Assessing Officer. During a survey ofthe premises of the appellant on 05.11.1992 the Income Tax Officerfound that the books were not fully audited and on that account theappellant was issued a show cause notice why penalty should not beimposed. — 1The cause shown by the appellant was that its Accountantwas un-well from 22.10.1992 to 11.11.1992. The Assessing Officer heldthat this was not sufficient cause and ordered the penalty. | 3In appeal the Commissioner reversed the finding and, asmentioned above the Tribunal reversed the finding of the Commissioner and maintained that of the Assessing Officer, 4The issue before us is a pure question of fact and we wouldbe able to help the assessee only if we come to a conclusion that thefinding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal is so perverse that it was not atall compatible with the evidence led. The OPD ticket showing a backproblem of the Accountant may or may not be correct. /In the circumstances, we are unable to reach the conclusionthat finding of the Tribunal was so perverse so as not to be supported bythe evidence and therefore this Court can not interfere| 6Appeal stands dismissed, 7Since the main case has been decided, the pending civilmiscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI )JUDGE January 13, 2020pooja sharma-l ( AVNEESH JHINGAN)JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable | 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