Mumbai v. Narandas Rajaram & Co.ltd
High Court
12 Dec 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mumbai v. Narandas Rajaram & Co.ltd
Date of order
12 Dec 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Mumbai v. Narandas Rajaram & Co.ltd, the High Court (2007) dismissed the appeal.
Issue: The revenue has preferred this appeal on the question of law as formulated in paragraph-A which reads as under :- (A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the : 2 : Hon’ble Tribunal is correct in cancelling the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3074 OF 2007
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1448 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax-2 )..Appellant
Mumbai
Versus
Narandas Rajaram & Co.Ltd., )..Respondent
----
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for appellant.
Mr.A.K.Jasani with H.S.Khurana with Mr.B.U.Idnani
for respondents.
----
Coram : F.I.Rebello &
R.S.Mohite,JJ
Date : 12.12.2007.
PC
1. Considering the cause shown, delay condoned.
Office to register the appeal.
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1448 OF 2007
1. The revenue has preferred this appeal on the
question of law as formulated in paragraph-A which
reads as under :-
(A) Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case and in law, the
: 2 :
Hon’ble Tribunal is correct in cancelling
the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the
Act.
2. The learned Tribunal in its impugned order has
held that there was no concealment as the respondent
has disclosed the income earlier which has been
assess as business income subsequently revenue
assessing income of the house property. The Supreme
T.Ashok Pai v. Commissioner of Income Taxreported in [2007] 292 ITR 11 (SC) has set out the
Court in T.Ashok Pai v. Commissioner of Income Tax
reported in [2007] 292 ITR 11 (SC)
reported in [2007] 292 ITR 11 (SC)
expression concealment of income.
3. In our opinion, the facts known to the revenue
cannot be said to be concealment and consequently
quesion of law considering the judgment of the
Supreme Court in in T.Ashok Pai (supra) does not
arise. Appeal accordingly dismissed.
(R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)
(R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,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.