Itxa/2206/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- 8 Mumbai v. Sulphusr Mills Ltd
High Court
15 Dec 2009 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/2206/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- 8 Mumbai v. Sulphusr Mills Ltd
Date of order
15 Dec 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itxa/2206/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- 8 Mumbai v. Sulphusr Mills Ltd, the High Court (2009) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: In the result, this appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of substantial question of law.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
1
acd
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2206 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax-8
...Appellant.
V/s.
Sulphur Mills Ltd..... Respondent. ----
Mr. Suresh Kumar, for the Appellant.
Mr. K. Shivram i/b Ajay R. Singh, for the Respondent.
----
CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 15TH DECEMBER, 2009
P.C.:
1.Heard learned counsel for the revenue and learned counsel for the
respondent. Perused appeal.
2.This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.8.2008 passed by
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The question revolves around the penalty imposed on the assessee. The relevant part of the said order reads thus:
“The case of the assessee is that it had made a bonafide claim adopting a particular interpretation of legal provisions and all particulars of the
2
claim had been filed. There was therefore no concealment. On careful consideration of all the aspects of the case, we agree that it was only a bonafide claim because the same had been made based on the certificate of the CA which was mandatory. These are specialised provisions on which bonafide differences of opinion is possible regarding the scope of extent of allowability. Admittedly, the assessee has not concealed any particulars of income which had been fully disclosed. In our view, on facts of the case, the explanation of the assessee has to be considered as bonafide within the meaning of the words used in the Explanation 1 to section 27(1)(c) and penalty for concealment will not therefore be justified. Accordingly we set aside the order of the CIT(A). In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed.”
3.Having seen the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal based on appreciation of evidence, we do not find any substantial question of law arising in the appeal. In the result, this appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of substantial question of law. Order accordingly.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
(V.C.DAGA, 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.