Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/2095/2013 Of The Commissioner Of In...

Itxa/2095/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) v. M/S. Kakade Construction Company

High Court 23 Apr 2015 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/2095/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) v. M/S. Kakade Construction Company
Date of order
23 Apr 2015
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itxa/2095/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) v. M/S. Kakade Construction Company, the High Court (2015) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: In these circumstances, the penalty as imposed cannot be sustained.

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

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2095 OF 2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) -Versus-M/s. Kakade Construction Company ..Appellant ..Respondent ...................... Mr. Tejveer Singh for the Appellant. CORAM: S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & A. K. MENON, JJ. DATE :- 23[rd] APRIL, 2015. P.C.: Having heard Mr. Tejveer Singh, the learned counsel, appearing for the revenue in support of this appeal, we have perused the order under challenge which deletes the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2]The Tribunal has assigned cogent and satisfactory reasons for deletion of the penalty. It has found from the factual position that prior to the date of search, a return of income was filed and which came to be finalized. The search took place in the instant case on 11[th ]February, 2009 but the return came to be finalized prior to 11[th ]February, 2009. However, the assessee may not have questioned the 1/2 wadhwa 2 orders in Quantum Proceedings by filing any appeal, yet, the Tribunal found that the original return of income was filed on 31[st] October, 2005. That was accepted by the Assessing Officer. The search took place on 11[th] February, 2009 and the deduction under section 80IB(10) was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on grounds not germane to section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Meaning thereby, there was no material found during search based on which the disallowance was made. The disallowance was on account of non-furnishing of audit report under section 10 CCB and non-furnishing of certain details as called for by the Assessing Officer. In these circumstances, the penalty as imposed cannot be sustained. We do not find such reasoning to be perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. This appeal, therefore, has no merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (A. K. MENON, J.) (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
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