In The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 18 v. Gopilal B. Lund, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: Whether the CIT(A) was justified in cancelling the penalty levied u/s.
Decision: Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. [ A.A.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYO.O.C.J.
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1446 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax - 18.. Appellant
Vs
Gopilal B. Lund.. Respondent
Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant
Mr. Subhash S. Shetty for the Respondent
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR &
A.A. SAYED, JJ.
P.C.:
DATE : 18th JULY, 2011.
1. Heard.
2. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in cancelling the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) is the question raised in this Appeal. levied u/s. 271(1)(c) is the question raised in this Appeal.
3. The CIT(A) in paragraph 5 of his order has recorded a finding of fact which the Tribunal has confirmed by holding that there is no concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income on the part of the assessee. fact which the Tribunal has confirmed by holding that there is no concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income on the part of the assessee.
4. The assessee had purchased an industrial gala in the year 1972
and the same was shown as a business asset in his
proprietorship business in the name and style of M/s. Sheetal Industries upto 31st December 1999. After that date, the assessee discontinued his business and as such the industrial gala ceased to be an asset of the business. The assessee after discontinuation of the business, transferred the asset and held it in his personal capacity (not as a business asset) from that date as part of personal investment. The CIT(A) has further recorded a finding of fact that the assessee had furnished the details of the sale of the asset in the return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act and offered the income to tax as long term capital gains. Tribunal has further held the fact that the assessee ought to have declared the capital gains as a short term capital gains instead of long term capital gain, cannot be a ground for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. We see no infirmity in the order passed by ITAT. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
[ A.A. SAYED, 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.