Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ranchi v. M/S Carbon & Graphite Products, Ranchi
High Court
06 Nov 2012 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · jhar_pg
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ranchi v. M/S Carbon & Graphite Products, Ranchi
Date of order
06 Nov 2012
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ranchi v. M/S Carbon & Graphite Products, Ranchi, the High Court (2012) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Hence, this appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI-----
Tax Appeal No. 03 of 2002
-----
Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi....AppellantVersus
M/s Carbon & Graphite Products, Ranchi.... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY
For the Appellant: Mr. Deepak Roshan, Sr. S.C. (I.T.) Ms. Rupa Kumari, AdvocateFor the Respondent:
-----
th November, 2012
Order No. 09
Dated 6
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
The penalty was imposed under Section 271(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assessing Officer which has been upheld by the appellate authority vide order dated 04.03.1997. The Income Tax Appellant Tribunal, Kolkata Bench-A came at Jamshedpur, observed that the assessee written loss of Rs.8,00,000/- and assessed loss of Rs.5,18,910/-, the difference has arisen on account of certain disallowances on the basis of that some disallowance were made in earlier year. The Tribunal was of the view that in the facts of the case, no penalty could have been levied in such case because of the reason that addition has been made by merely disallowing certain claims, and therefore, in the facts of the case, it cannot be said that the assessee has concealed any fact or furnished inaccurate particulars.
We are of the considered opinion that the tribunal has recored the findings on the basis of facts of the case and in fact this appeal, which has been admitted for deciding the question of law, involves no question of law.
Hence, this appeal is dismissed.
(Prakash Tatia, C. J.)
(Jaya Roy , 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.