City Xiii Mumbai v. M/S.khanna & Co
High Court
12 Dec 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
City Xiii Mumbai v. M/S.khanna & Co
Date of order
12 Dec 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In City Xiii Mumbai v. M/S.khanna & Co, the High Court (2007) dismissed the appeal.
Issue: The learned Tribunal addressed the issue as to whether there was any concealment on the part of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.149 OF 2001
The Commissioner of Income Tax )..Appellants
city XIII Mumbai
Versus
M/s.Khanna & Co. )..Respondents
----
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the appellants.
Ms.Beena Pillai i/by D.M.Harish & Co. for
respondents.
----
Coram : F.I.Rebello &
R.S.Mohite,JJ
Date : 12.12.2007.
PC
1. Revenue has preferred this appeal on the
question of law as formulated in paragraph-5 of the
appeal memo. The Appeal arises from the order
passed in ITA No.1037/N/Bom/92 dated 19th September
2000. The learned Tribunal addressed the issue as
to whether there was any concealment on the part of
the assessee. ITAT noted that the finding as
recorded was that the ultimate purchaser did exist.
Addressing itself to the issue of penalty, the
Tribunal held that we have to look into the matter
with the final finding which is a belief and not
claimed to be the falsity of assessee’s claim. The
: 2 :
Tribunal held that addition stood finalised on the
basis of the above plea of the ITAT. As the
ultimate purchaser did exist it accordingly set
aside the order imposing penalty.
2. These are clearly findings of fact. Nothing has
been brought on record to show that the said
findings are perverse. In the light of that there
is no substantial question of law, Appeal dismissed
accordingly.
(R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)
(R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.