In Jyoti v. Jani, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal.
Issue: Revenue is in appeal against the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 01.08.2017 raising following question for our consideration:Appellate Tribunal dated 01.08.2017 raising following question for our consideration: “Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in del...
Decision: Quite apart from the quantum addition being deleted by the Tribunal, we notice that the entire issue is highly debatable.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/TAX APPEAL NO. 467 of 2018
==========================================================PRINCIPAL COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX-3VersusDEVENDRA NARANBHAI PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHIandHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 09/05/2018 ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. Revenue is in appeal against the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 01.08.2017 raising following question for our consideration:Appellate Tribunal dated 01.08.2017 raising following question for our consideration:
“Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act?”
2. The issue pertains to penalty. We notice that the Tribunal has deleted the very basis of the addition upon which, the penalty was levied. Quite apart from the quantum addition being deleted by the Tribunal, we notice that the entire issue is highly debatable. The assessee had claimed loss on sale of mutual funds in the name of his minor son. The Revenue objected to such loss being reflected in the assessee's hand. deleted the very basis of the addition upon which, the penalty was levied. Quite apart from the quantum addition being deleted by the Tribunal, we notice that the entire issue is highly debatable. The assessee had claimed loss on sale of mutual funds in the name of his minor son. The Revenue objected to such loss being reflected in the assessee's hand.
The Tribunal, while deleting the addition held that income would include loss and therefore, clubbing provision under section 64 supports the contention of the assessee. Quite apart from the validity of this conclusion of the Tribunal, the issue is undoubtedly debatable. In any case, therefore, penalty could not have been imposed.
3. Tax Appeal is dismissed.
(AKIL KURESHI, J)
JYOTI V. JANI
(B.N. KARIA, 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.