Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Ramdas N Desai
High Court
05 Oct 1996 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Ramdas N Desai
Date of order
05 Oct 1996
Assessment year(s)
1967-68
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Ramdas N Desai, the High Court (1996) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? -------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus RAMDAS N DESAI -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR MIHIR THAKORE for Petitioner MR JP SHAH for Respondent No.
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 GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 176 of 1983
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.M.SONI and
MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT
============================================================
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?
--------------------------------------------------------------
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
Versus
RAMDAS N DESAI
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
MR MIHIR THAKORE for Petitioner
MR JP SHAH for Respondent No. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE S.M.SONI and
MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT
Date of decision: 05/10/96
ORAL JUDGEMENT
�The following question is referred to us in
compliance with the directions issued by this Court:
� "Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Income-tax
Appellate Tribunal was right in law in
deleting the penalty of Rs.30,000/-
imposed by the Inspecting Assistant
Commissioner u/s.271(1)(c) of the
I.T.Act,1961?"
�The Assessee preferred an appeal from the order of the I.A.C. dated 8-2-1974 imposing the penalty of Rs.30,000/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty proceedings were initiated because of the re-assessment proceedings under section 147 for the Assessment Year 1967-68. The petitioner had challenged the order of re-assessment for the Assessment Year 1967-68 by Reference No.ITR 134/83. This Court (Coram: N.J.Pandya and S.D. Pandit, JJ. passed an order holding
of the I.A.C. dated 8-2-1974 imposing the penalty of Rs.30,000/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty proceedings were initiated because of the re-assessment proceedings under section 147 for the Assessment Year 1967-68. The petitioner had challenged the order of re-assessment for the Assessment Year 1967-68 by Reference No.ITR 134/83. This Court (Coram: N.J.Pandya and S.D. Pandit, JJ. passed an order holding that the action for reopening the assessment was not justified. Penalty came to be imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1)(c) of the
justified. Penalty came to be imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961 as a result of re-assessment
proceeding. When the re-assessment proceedings are held not justified, the penalty imposed thereon also must fail as a consequence thereof. In view of this, the question referred to us is required to be answered in the affirmative i.e. against the revenue and in favour of
the assessee.
�Reference stands disposed of accordingly. No
costs.
***********
sf-sms
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.