Income Tax Appeal v. Rakesh Kumar Shahu Nagpur
High Court
07 Oct 2011 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · testcase
Parties
Income Tax Appeal v. Rakesh Kumar Shahu Nagpur
Date of order
07 Oct 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Income Tax Appeal v. Rakesh Kumar Shahu Nagpur, the High Court (2011) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDENAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 159 OF 2010(Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Nagpur
Vs.
Rakesh Kumar Shahu Nagpur)
........................................................................................................................................................................
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders
Court's or Judge's Order
........................................................................................................................................................................
Shri Parchure Adv for appellant.Shri Dewani Adv for respondents.
CORAM: B. P. DHARMADHIKARI &A. P. BHANGALE JJ.
DATED: 7[th] OCTOBER, 2011..
Heard Shri Parchure learned counsel for the appellant who relies upon Explanation 5(2) of Section 271(1) to urge that
ITAT has wrongly accepted the discloser of exonerated assessee in
penalty proceedings. Shri Dewani relies upon judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal , 251 Income Tax Reports 9 (S. C.) to show that in similar circumstances discloser to buy peace has been accepted and appeal has not been entertained. He also points out from the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court that Assessment years involved there were 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87 and
explanation filed in its present form has been added on 01.10.1984.
The authorities have concurrently recorded findings in favour of present claimant, finding of facts are not in dispute. Explanation at 5(2) also shows that if such discloser is made during the course of such search the law does not treat assessee as a person who has concealed income. Deemed fixation incorporated therein stands excluded because of Clause (2) added to Explanation 5.
We, therefore, do not find any substantial question of law arising in the matter. Appeal rejected. No order as to costs.
JUDGE
JUDGE
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.