Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

C.i.T. Vs. Mp.State Handloom Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon

C.i.T. vs Mp.State Handloom Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Feb 19, 2014
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1129825

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Subject
Company

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Company

Key legal issue
Company

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

C.i.T.

Respondent

Mp.State Handloom Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon

Excerpt

- 1 -1 itr no.96/1998 19/2/2014 : none appears for the appellant. this application under section 256(2) of the income tax act was filed on 1st february 1998 and till date even notice on the same have not been issued. for the assessment of tax made in the years 1979-80 to 1985-1986 with regard to imposition of penalty as interference has been made by the commissioner, income tax, appeal and by the income tax appellate tribunal, this application has been filed by the revenue. it is the case of the revenue that penalty imposed has been interfered with on improper grounds. having gone through the memorandum of appeal and the questions of law indicated therein, we are of the considered view that no case is made out for interference. the tribunal has come to the conclusion that the explanation given by the assessee for the delay in depositing of the tax is attributed to certain delay in internal auditing of assessee's account and compulsory auditing required to be done by the statutory authorities under the m.p.cooperative societies act. finding the same to be bonafide, the tribunal has interfered in the imposition of penalty. respondent assessee is a cooperative society registered under the m.p.cooperative societies act, 1960 and judicial notice can -:2:- be taken of the fact that due to financial constrain the society has gone into winding up and writ petitions are pending before this court as the society is unable to pay pension to its retired employees. considering all these fact ors.we are of the considered view that no useful purpose would be serve by reopening the assessment with regard to imposition of penalty for the assessment years in question now. that apart, the discretion exercised by the tribunal in refusing to interfere with the imposition of penalty is based on reasonable consideration and we see no error warranting interference. the appeal is therefore, dismissed. ( rajendra menon) (a.k.sharma) judge judge mrs.mishra 2

Full Judgment

- 1 -1 ITR No.96/1998 19/2/2014 : None appears for the appellant.

This application under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act was filed on 1st February 1998 and till date even notice on the same have not been issued.

For the assessment of tax made in the years 1979-80 to 1985-1986 with regard to imposition of penalty as interference has been made by the Commissioner, Income Tax, Appeal and by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, this application has been filed by the revenue.

It is the case of the revenue that penalty imposed has been interfered with on improper grounds.

Having gone through the memorandum of appeal and the questions of law indicated therein, we are of the considered view that no case is made out for interference.

The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the explanation given by the assessee for the delay in depositing of the tax is attributed to certain delay in internal auditing of assessee's account and compulsory auditing required to be done by the statutory authorities under the M.P.Cooperative Societies Act.

Finding the same to be bonafide, the Tribunal has interfered in the imposition of penalty.

Respondent assessee is a Cooperative Society registered under the M.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and judicial notice can -:2:- be taken of the fact that due to financial constrain the society has gone into winding up and writ petitions are pending before this Court as the Society is unable to pay pension to its retired employees.

Considering all these fact ORS.we are of the considered view that no useful purpose would be serve by reopening the assessment with regard to imposition of penalty for the assessment years in question now.

That apart, the discretion exercised by the Tribunal in refusing to interfere with the imposition of penalty is based on reasonable consideration and we see no error warranting interference.

The appeal is therefore, dismissed.

( Rajendra Menon) (A.K.Sharma) Judge Judge mrs.mishra 2

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial