| Case ID |
d5ce3f83-d5c4-45c8-b814-423f400e1c87 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT REFERENCE No. 259 OF 1975 |
| Decision Date |
|
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The High Court declined to answer the question referred to it regarding the tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty imposed on the assessee under section 271(1)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act. The court held that the reference was limited to whether the tribunal was correct in not considering the combined operation of sections 271(1)(a)(i) and 271(2). The High Court emphasized that the question of law raised was not adequately addressed by the tribunal, as it did not consider the implications of the retrospective amendment in section 271(1)(a)(i) that would have affected the tribunal's decision on the penalty. There was a clear indication that the tribunal's decision was based solely on the interpretation of section 271(1)(a)(i) without engaging with the provisions of section 271(2) which would have altered the context of assessing penalty for registered firms. Thus, the court concluded that the question did not arise from the tribunal's order, and therefore, it could not provide an answer. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the interpretation of penalty provisions under the Income-tax Act, 1961, focusing on sections 271(1)(a)(i) and 271(2). The Gujarat High Court dealt with a reference from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal concerning whether the tribunal was justified in cancelling a penalty imposed on a registered firm for late filing of income tax returns. The tribunal found that the firm was entitled to a refund and therefore, the penalty should not have been imposed. However, the revenue contended that the tribunal did not correctly apply the amended provisions of the law, which had retrospective effect. The High Court clarified that although the question of law was significant, it did not arise from the order of the tribunal, which failed to consider the combined implications of the relevant sections. The case highlights the complexities involved in tax law interpretations, particularly relating to penalties and the obligations of registered firms under the Income-tax Act. Key terms include 'Income-tax Act', 'penalty provisions', 'registered firm', and 'tribunal decisions'. This case serves as a reference point for similar tax disputes and emphasizes the importance of comprehensive legal analysis in tax law. |
| Court |
Gujarat High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
P.D. Desai, J.
|
| Lawyers |
B.R. Shah,
R.P. Bhatt,
J.P. Shah amicus curiae
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Respondents |
C. Shantilal & Co.
|
| Citations |
1982 SLD 1089,
(1982) 136 ITR 522
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192,
CIT v. Smt. Anusuya Devi [1968] 68 ITR 750 (SC),
Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 634 (SC),
CIT v. Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia [1980] 122 ITR 38 (SC),
CIT v. Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust [1955] 27 ITR 279 (Bom.),
Bhanji Bhagwandas v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 18 (SC)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
256,
271(1)(a)(i),
271(2),
140A
|