COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. RALLARAM KHURANA - 2007-LL-0417-5

Citation	2007-LL-0417-5
Appellant Name	COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Respondent Name	RALLARAM KHURANA
Court	ITAT
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	17/04/2007
Assessment Year	1985-86, 1986-87
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	concealed income • tax effect
Bot Summary:	These two applications are filed by the Revenue under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 against the order of the Tribunal dt. 129 and 130/Nag/1994 declining to refer the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the CIT(A), Nagpur was justified in cancelling the penalty so imposed under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by the AO Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amounts were offered only to buy peace a n d avoid litigation and does not represent the concealed income of the assessee The assessment years involved herein are 1985-86 and 1986-87. The dispute in these two applications pertains to deletion of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since the tax effect in both these applications are only Rs. 65,000, in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Pithwa Engg. Works 197 CTR 655: 276 ITR 519, in our opinion, this is not a fit case for calling statement of the case.

Heard Mr. Anand Parchure, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. K. P. Devani, learned counsel for respondent. These two applications are filed by Revenue under s. 256(2) of IT Act, 1961 against order of Tribunal dt. 25th Jan., 1994 in R. A. Nos. 129 and 130/Nag/1994 declining to refer following questions of law for opinion of this Court: "1. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in law in holding that CIT(A), Nagpur was justified in cancelling penalty so imposed under s. 271(1)(c) of Act by AO? Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in law in holding that amounts were offered only to buy peace n d avoid litigation and does not represent concealed income of assessee? assessment years involved herein are 1985-86 and 1986-87. dispute in these two applications pertains to deletion of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of Act. penalty levied in IT Appln. No. 1 of 1995 is Rs. 50,000 and in IT Appln. No. 3 of 1995 is Rs. 15,000. Since tax effect in both these applications are only Rs. 65,000, in light of decision of this Court in case of CIT vs. Pithwa Engg. Works (2005) 197 CTR (Bom) 655: (2005) 276 ITR 519 (Bom), in our opinion, this is not fit case for calling statement of case. Accordingly, both applications are dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. *** COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. RALLARAM KHURANA

Metadata

Judgment