In M/S.manghandas Jayramdas, Mumbai v. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 14(2, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: Admit on the following substantial question of law. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the penalty levied of Rs.19,63,730/- u/s.
Decision: 3.In this view of the matter, the order of the Tribunal dated 13[th ]July 2009 sustaining the penalty is quashed and set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the assessing officer for denovo consideration in accordance with law.
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.125 OF 2010
M/s.Manghandas Jayramdas, Mumbai..Appellant.
Versus
The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, 14(2)..Respondent.
Mr.M. Subramaniam with Mr.V.S. Hadade for the appellant.Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & R.M. Savant, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 6[th] December, 2010.
1.Heard. Admit on the following substantial question of law.
“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the penalty levied of Rs.19,63,730/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act ?
2.Counsel for the parties state that the appeal filed by the assessee
against the penalty order was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that no appeal has been filed by the assessee against the quantum addition. Counsel for the appellant brought to our notice that in fact the appeal has been filed by the assessee against the quantum addition and the Tribunal by
its order dated 27[th] October 2010 has deleted the penalty and restored the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for decision afresh in accordance with law.
3.In this view of the matter, the order of the Tribunal dated 13[th ]July 2009 sustaining the penalty is quashed and set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the assessing officer for denovo consideration in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly disposed off with no order as to costs.
3.
(R.M. Savant, 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.