Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax-19 } v. D...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-19 } v. Dated :- November 15, 2014

High Court 15 Nov 2014 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-19 } v. Dated :- November 15, 2014
Date of order
15 Nov 2014
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-19 } v. Dated :- November 15, 2014, the High Court (2014) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: The penalty has been deleted by the Commissioner by holding that the issue was debatable and in quantum proceedings the addition was deleted by the Tribunal.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1654 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax-19}AppellantversusM/s. Jolly Apartments CHS Ltd.}Respondent Mr. Tejveer Singh with Ms. Padma Divakar for the Appellant.Ms. Aasifa Khan for the Respondent. CORAM :-S.C.DHARMADHIKARI &A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED :-NOVEMBER 15, 2014 P.C. :- This is an Appeal challenging the order passed by the Tribunal on 30[th] January, 2012 in Income Tax Appeal No. 2599/Mum/2011. The deletion of penalty by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 25[th] January, 2011 was challenged before the Tribunal by the Revenue. The assessment year is 2002-03. 2)The facts have been noted in para 2 of the Tribunal’s order. The penalty has been deleted by the Commissioner by holding that the issue was debatable and in quantum proceedings the addition was deleted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s order was allowed to attain finality. In these circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that there was no basis for imposing penalty. The ingredients or provisions enabling imposition of penalty under section 271(1) clause (c) are not satisfied in this case. Such a finding of fact rendered concurrently cannot be termed as perverse. There is no error apparent on the face of the record either. Consequently, the Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. It is dismissed. (A.A.SAYED, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, 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