The Commissioner Of Income Tax 13 v. Hiren R. Desai Benefit Trust
High Court
21 Nov 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax 13 v. Hiren R. Desai Benefit Trust
Date of order
21 Nov 2011
Assessment year(s)
1988-89
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax 13 v. Hiren R. Desai Benefit Trust, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: 1.Whether the ITAT was justified in canceling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, is the question raised in this Appeal.
Decision: Hence, the Appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.6077 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax 13..Appellant.Vs.
Hiren R. Desai Benefit Trust...Respondent.
....
Mr. Suresh Kumar, for the Appellant.
Mr. P.C. Tripathi, i/b. S.V. Pikale & Co. for the Respondent.
....
P.C.
CORAM : J. P. DEVADHAR & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 21st NOVEMBER, 2011.
1.Whether the ITAT was justified in canceling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, is the question raised in this Appeal.
2.The assessment year involved herein is A.Y. 1988-89.
3.In the assessment year in question, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on account of quantum additions made in the regular assessment. Admittedly, the quantum additions made in the regular assessment have been deleted by the ITAT and the appeal
filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act has been withdrawn i.e. Income Tax Appeal No.2304 of 2010 vide order dated 12.10.2011.
4.In this view of the matter, since the quantum additions stand deleted, the penalty imposed on account of quantum additions cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we see no reason to entertain the Appeal. Hence, the Appeal is dismissed.
(A. R. JOSHI, 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.
EaseValue