In Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 5 v. Arvindbhai P. Patel, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: Following questions have been presented for our consideration: “[A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law and on facts in deleting the penalty levied u/s.
Decision: The Tax Appeal is therefore dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/TAX APPEAL NO. 1265 of 2018
==========================================================PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5VersusARVINDBHAI P. PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHIand
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UMESH TRIVEDI
Date : 23/10/2018
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1.Revenue has filed this appeal challenging the judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, dated 18.4.2018. Following questions have been presented for our consideration:
“[A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law and on facts in deleting the penalty levied u/s. 158BFA(2) r.w.s. 158BFA(3) of the Act on account of concealment of income?
[B] Whether `ignorance of law’ can be a valid
ground to hold that the assessee has not concealed the income and penalty u/s. 158BFA(2) r.w.s. 158BFA(3) of the Act is not leviable?”
2.The issue pertains to penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section u/s. 158BFA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. That the Tribunal deleted mainly on the ground that
the quantum addition on the basis of such penalty was imposed, came to be deleted.
3.Counsel for the revenue candidly pointed out that, against the decision of the Tribunal, Tax Appeals No. 855 of 2017 and 857 of 2017 came to be dismissed by the High Court on 7.3.2018. The Tax Appeal is therefore dismissed.
(AKIL KURESHI, J)
syed/
(UMESH TRIVEDI, 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.