Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridaba...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Shri Sadhwa (Huf

High Court 10 Aug 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Shri Sadhwa (Huf
Date of order
10 Aug 2010
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Shri Sadhwa (Huf, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

ITA No. 248 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 248 of 2008 Date of Decision: 10.8.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ....Appellant. Versus Shri Sadhwa (HUF) ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1.The Assessing Officer having made an addition in theincome returned by the assessee on account of capital gains arisingfrom sale of agricultural land initiated proceedings for penalty underSection 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) andimposed a penalty of Rs.37,50,780/- which was set aside on appeal bythe CIT (A). The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT (A). The revenuehas filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Act claiming thefollowing substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case,the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penaltyimposed u/s 271(1)(c) at Rs.37,50,780/-?” 2. This Court while deciding ITA No. 247 of 2008 [The ITA No. 248 of 2008 Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. M/s Shri Sadhwa(HUF)] has held that no taxable capital gains arose on the sale of theagricultural land. In such a situation question of concealment of incomedoes not arise and, therefore, no penalty was exigible. 3.Accordingly, no substantial question of law arises in thisappeal. The appeal is dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE August 10, 2010gbs (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)JUDGE
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