Case LawHigh Court › Ita/20/1993 Of The Commissioner Of Incom...

Ita/20/1993 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Nagpur v. M/S Bd.yadav,Mr.meshram Nagpur

High Court 20 Mar 2007 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · testcase
Parties
Ita/20/1993 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Nagpur v. M/S Bd.yadav,Mr.meshram Nagpur
Date of order
20 Mar 2007
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In Ita/20/1993 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Nagpur v. M/S Bd.yadav,Mr.meshram Nagpur, the High Court (2007) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Issue: 3.When the agriculturists themselves denied to have given any credits, whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty is the question which needs consideration.

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

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYAPPELLATE SIDENAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR INCOME TAX APPLICATION NOS.20 OF 1993 Office Notes, Office Memoranda ofCoram, appearances, Court's orders ofdirections and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr.Anand Parchure, Advocate for the Applicant. None for the respondents. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR & B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ. DATED : 20TH MARCH, 2007. P.C. : 1.None for the respondents, though served.2.This application was admitted on 15[th] April, 1998 on six substantial questions set out in the reference application. The dispute in the present application relates to deletion of the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the assessment order, it is stated that the cash credits totalling to Rs.9,50,000/- received from 104 persons who were stated to be mainly agriculturists were not genuine. Therefore, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under Section 271(1)(C) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) set aside the penalty. On further appeal filed by the Revenue, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT (A). 3.When the agriculturists themselves denied to have given any credits, whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty is the question which needs consideration. 4.In this view of the matter, the application is allowed on the following substantial question of law : “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in upholding the order of the CIT (A) in cancelling the penalties levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act ? 5.The Tribunal is directed to forward statement of case as expeditiously as possible. The application is allowed with no order as to costs. Judge Judge. /agk
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan