Case LawHigh Court › Pricipal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gan...

Pricipal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gandhinagar v. Appearance

High Court 11 Jun 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Pricipal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gandhinagar v. Appearance
Date of order
11 Jun 2018
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Pricipal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gandhinagar v. Appearance, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

C/TAXAP/523/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 523 of 2018 ========================================================== PRICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGARVersusSURESHCHANDRA M SHAH========================================================== 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 : 11/06/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1.Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 22.11.2017 raising following question for our consideration: “Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts the case in deleting the penalty of Rs.21,77,147/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act?” 2.The issue pertains to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), which the Assessing Officer imposed but which the Tribunal eventually deleted. 3.The assessee had made investment in Kisan Vikas Patra and also shown the same in the balance-sheet. The assessee had however not offered the interest accruing on such investment for tax. The explanation of the assessee was that Kisan Vikas Patra was his capital asset and the gain would be offered to tax after indexation at the time of encashment. The Assessing Officer did not accept this explanation and taxed the interest and also, as noted, imposed penalty. 4.In relation to penalty, the Tribunal however observed that the assessee had furnished all necessary particulars pertaining to income. This was not a case where inaccurate particulars of income were provided. Though not so observed in so many words, the Tribunal also seem to be leaning in favour of the view that the explanation of the assessee was not totally unjustified. 5.No question of law arises. Tax Appeal is dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Defend a reassessment (Sec 148) notice → 💬 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