Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/6971/2010 Of The Commissioner Of In...

Itxa/6971/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1 Mumbai v. Galaxy Aviation Pvt. Ltd

High Court 09 Oct 2012 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/6971/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1 Mumbai v. Galaxy Aviation Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
09 Oct 2012
Assessment year(s)
2002-03
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itxa/6971/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1 Mumbai v. Galaxy Aviation Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2012) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: SANKLECHA, JJ.DATED : 9TH OCTOBER, 2012 P.C. :- 1.Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is the question raised in this appeal.

Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

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

itxa6971-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.6971 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Galaxy Aviation Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta, senior Advocate for the appellant.Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.DATED : 9TH OCTOBER, 2012 P.C. :- 1.Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is the question raised in this appeal. 2.The assessment year involved herein is AY 2002-03. 3.On perusal of the order passed by the ITAT, it is seen that in the reopened assessment proceedings, the assessee voluntarily came forward and offered to pay tax which was not the basis for reopening of the assessment. However, penalty was levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) on the amount of tax voluntarily offered by the assessee. On appeal, the Tribunal deleted the penalty by recording that, firstly the assessment was not reopened for recovery of tax voluntarily offered by the assessee and secondly, the said tax was not paid on account of unintentional error in the return of income and the said error was a bonafide error and that the explanation given by the assessee is acceptable. 4.In these circumstances, in our opinion, the decision of the Tribunal in deleting the penalty is based on finding of fact and no substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, 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