Cit Vs. Medipac (P) Ltd.

Cit vs Medipac (P) Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Apr 09, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/710143

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/710143
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Apr 09, 2001
Case Number: IT Reference No. 334 of 1982 9 April 2001
Subject: Direct Taxation

Case Summary

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

In the Delhi High Court Arijit Pasayat, C.J. & D.K. Jain, J. -

Key legal issue: Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cit

Advocate Sanjeev Khanna and;Ms. Prem Lata Bansal;for the Revenue

Respondent

Medipac (P) Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: [2001]119TAXMAN130(Delhi)

Excerpt

in the delhi high court arijit pasayat, c.j. & d.k. jain, j. - .....pasayat, c.j.at the instance of the revenue, following questions have been referred by the tribunal, delhi bench b, under section 256(1) of the income tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the act) for opinion of this court :'1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in holding that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) and section 273 of the income tax act, 1961 are pari materia and the burden of proving that the estimate of advance tax as filed by the assessed was false to its knowledge lay on the department ?2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in law in holding that revenue had to produce some material to show that assessed had in this year earned income of rs. 1 lakh although the assessed itself had disclosed it under the v.d. scheme in respect of this year ?3. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the commissioner (appeals) and cancelling the penalty levied by the inspecting assistant commissioner (asstt.) ?'we have heard the learned counsel for the revenue. there is no appearance on behalf of the assessed in spite of notice.2. we had occasion to deal with the question of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the act in income tax reference no. 314 of 1982 and following the decision of this court in cit v. la-medico (1992) 198 itr 3271, it was held that the tribunal was not justified in cancelling the penalty under section 271(1)(c) and so far as section 273(a) of the act is concerned, the logic is equally applicable. the parameters are not entirely different. thereforee, the tribunal was not justified in cancelling the penalty under section 273(a). accordingly, we answer the first question, so far as section 273(a) is concerned, in the negative, in favor of the revenue and against the assessed. in view of the answer to first question, it is unnecessary to answer the other two questions.....

Full Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.

At the instance of the revenue, following questions have been referred by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench B, under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for opinion of this court :

'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) and section 273 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are pari materia and the burden of proving that the estimate of advance tax as filed by the assessed was false to its knowledge lay on the department ?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that revenue had to produce some material to show that assessed had in this year earned income of Rs. 1 lakh although the assessed itself had disclosed it under the V.D. Scheme in respect of this year ?

3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and cancelling the penalty levied by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Asstt.) ?'

We have heard the learned counsel for the revenue. There is no appearance on behalf of the assessed in spite of notice.

2. We had occasion to deal with the question of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in Income Tax Reference No. 314 of 1982 and following the decision of this court in CIT v. La-Medico (1992) 198 ITR 3271, it was held that the Tribunal was not justified in cancelling the penalty under section 271(1)(c) and so far as section 273(a) of the Act is concerned, the logic is equally applicable. The parameters are not entirely different. thereforee, the Tribunal was not justified in cancelling the penalty under section 273(a). Accordingly, we answer the first question, so far as section 273(a) is concerned, in the negative, in favor of the revenue and against the assessed. In view of the answer to first question, it is unnecessary to answer the other two questions referred.

3. The reference stands disposed of.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2001 Same Parties Cit vs Medipac (P) Ltd. Same Subject Direct Taxation

Direct Taxation