Case LawHigh Court › Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - Central...

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - Central 4 v. M/S. Shreya Life Sciences Pvt Ltd

High Court 19 Mar 2019 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - Central 4 v. M/S. Shreya Life Sciences Pvt Ltd
Date of order
19 Mar 2019
Assessment year(s)
2010-11
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - Central 4 v. M/S. Shreya Life Sciences Pvt Ltd, the High Court (2019) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: P.C.: 1.Revenue is in the appeal against the judgment of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short)raising following question for our consideration:- " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and inlaw, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied u/S....

Decision: The appeal is dismissed. [ SARANG V.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

R.M. AMBERKAR (Private Secretary) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYO.O.C.J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 180 OF 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central 4..Appellant Versus M/s. Shreya Life Sciences Pvt Ltd ..Respondent ................... •Mr. Tejveer Singh for the Appellant ................... CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE : MARCH 19, 2019. P.C.: 1.Revenue is in the appeal against the judgment of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short)raising following question for our consideration:- " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and inlaw, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied u/S.221(1) r/w S. 140A(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 when the assessee haddefaulted on payment of self assessment tax on the income earnedduring the previous year relevant to assessment year 2010-11?" 2. Respondent assessee, a Private Limited Company hadfailed to deposit self assessment tax due to which theAssessing OfÏcer imposed penalty under Section 221(1) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short). The Tribunal while deleting the penalty referred to and relied upon thefurther proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 221 of the Actwhich provides that where the assessee proves to thesatisfaction of the Assessing OfÏcer that the default was forgood and sufÏcient reasons, no penalty shall be levied underthe said Section. The Tribunal accepted the assessee'sexplanation that due to acute financial constrains, the taxcould not be deposited. The assessee had pointed out thateven the other dues such as the provident fund, ESIC andbank interest could not be paid by the assessee. Theassessee could also not deposit the government taxes suchas sales tax and service tax. In fact, the recoveries of the taxcould be made only upon adjustment of the bank accounts. 3.We do not see any error in the view of the Tribunal. Noquestion of law arises. The appeal is dismissed. [ SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. ] [ AKIL KURESHI, 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