High CourtsDivision Bench(2000) 05 MP CK 0009

Commissioner of Income Tax vs Gajraj Singh Nathu Singh Hatpipla

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 2 May 2000 · Citation: (2001) 115 TAXMAN 286

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shambhoo Singh, J · R.D. Vyas, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Income-tax Reference No. 63 of 1996

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 271 words
1.

This application for reference is made by the department against the order of the Tribunal in IT Appeal No. 460 (Indore) of 1989, assessment year 1983-84, dated 27-6-1991, whereby the Tribunal held that the penalty imposed by the departmental authorities was wrong on the factual data contained in the departmental order and in the record whereas the record showed that the certificate issued by the Mandi Committee upon which the department relied was on a wrong calculation. Apparently instead of 1444.83, 1397.67 quintals of purchase was done. On calculation of the details of the certificate, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that factually there was a mistake in totalling by the Mandi Committee, therefore, the amount arrived at by the assessee was not correct. Hence, the penalty could not have been imposed upon the non-applicant. Another point which the Tribunal held against the department is that the departmental authorities who had initiated the proceedings and who had imposed the penalty did not have the jurisdiction to impose Rs. 10,000 by way of penalty whereas it had imposed penalty of Rs. 40,940 u/s 271(1)(c) of the income tax Act, 1961.

2.

We feel that the Tribunal was right on the facts since there was wrong totalling by the Mandi Committee in the certificate which it had issued. The judgment of the Tribunal is based on facts rather than any question of law arising out of the judgment of the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, we do not see any question of law, hence, IT Reference No. 63 of 1996 is rejected with costs. Advocate''s costs as may be approved.