Itxa/308/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Nashik 422 002 v. M/S. Gavkari Prakashan, Nashik
High Court
16 Apr 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/308/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Nashik 422 002 v. M/S. Gavkari Prakashan, Nashik
Date of order
16 Apr 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itxa/308/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Nashik 422 002 v. M/S. Gavkari Prakashan, Nashik, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: All the appeals are dismissed in limine (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA J.)
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 307 OF 2009WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 308 OF 2009WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 309 OF 2009WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 310 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income-tax-I,Nashik.
V/s.
M/s.Gavkari Prakashan.
... Appellant.
... Respondent.
Vimal Gupta for the appellant.
S.N.Inamdar for the respondent.
CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED : 16th April 2009.
P.C. :----
.
Heard learned counsel for the rival
parties. Perused appeal papers.
2.In all these appeals, mainly, two questionsof law are raised, one relating to section 271D andanother relating to section 271E of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 ("Act" for short).
3.So far as question leading to section 271Dis concerned, the Tribunal by dealing with thecontentions raised in this behalf has held that thetransactions in question were genuine. After
appreciating the evidence leading to acceptance ofcash deposits the Tribunal has concurred with thefinding of fact recorded by the CIT(A) and deletedpenalties imposed under section 271D of the Act assuch the said finding is based on appreciation ofevidence. In view thereof, no substantial question of
law could be said to be arising from the impugned
order revolving around section 271D of the Act.
4.So far as question leading to section 271Eis concerned, the Tribunal has recorded finding offact that past more than 20 years, cash deposits wereaccepted and in all these years right from theassessment years 1985-86 to 1995-96, no penalty waslevied on the petitioner for committing breach ofsection 271E or for that purpose under section 271D.The assessee was under bonafide belief that as thedeposits from public were raised in the regular courseof business, no penalty was leviable. This finding isalso based on appreciation of evidence. No
substantial question of law is involved in these
appeals.
5.
with no order as to costs.
All the appeals are dismissed in limine
(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.