Itxa/357/2003 Of Gaurav Murlidhar Bade v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Kolhapur
High Court
16 Oct 2004 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/357/2003 Of Gaurav Murlidhar Bade v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Kolhapur
Date of order
16 Oct 2004
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Itxa/357/2003 Of Gaurav Murlidhar Bade v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Kolhapur, the High Court (2004) decided the matter.
Decision: The appeal is dismissed in limine.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
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.357 OF 2003
Gaurav Murlidhar Bade .. Appellant.
V/s.
Income Tax Officer, Ward
1(2), Kolhapur .. Respondent.
Mr.A.K. Jasani for the appellant.
Ms.S.V. Bharucha i/b. P. Kapur for the respondent.
CORAM : R.M. LODHA, &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 16H OCTOBER, 2004.
P.C. :
Heard Mr.A.K. Jasani, the learned counsel
for the appellant - assessee.
2. The Tribunal in the impugned order
observed thus :
"After careful consideration of arguments
of both sides in the light of relevant
provisions and case law cited, I find that
the basis and reasoning as given by the
learned CIT(A) in upholding the action of
the A.O. in holding that penalty is
attracted in this case are sound and
convincing. Each and every point as
raised before the ld. CIT(A) is found to
have been taken note of and considered by
the learned CIT(A) by passing a very
elaborate and reasoned order. Since the
assessee was not being previously assessed
to tax and when she had taxable income for
the year under consideration and return of
income was only filed in response to
notice u/s.148, therefore, she has been
2
properly held deemed to have concealed her
income within the meaning of Explanation 3
to Sec.271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act.
Similarly, by giving an explanation which
has been found to be false by the A.O. or
by giving further explanation which she
has not been able to substantiate, it has
been properly held/confirmed by the
authorities below that penalty in this
case was leviable. Therefore, to this
extent the orders of the authorities below
are confirmed and the appeal of the
assessee in this regard is dismissed."
3. The consideration of the matter by the
Tribunal cannot be said to suffer from any legal
infirmity.
4. No substantial question of law arises in
this appeal. The appeal is dismissed in limine.
(R.M. LODHA, J.)
(R.M. LODHA, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, 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.