Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 23, Mum...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 23, Mumbai v. Hemlata Hamilapurkar

High Court 12 Jul 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 23, Mumbai v. Hemlata Hamilapurkar
Date of order
12 Jul 2011
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 23, Mumbai v. Hemlata Hamilapurkar, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: 1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the question raised in this appeal by the Revenue.

Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

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.3400 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax - 23, Mumbai..Appellant. Versus Hemlata Hamilapurkar ..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr.K. Gopal with Mr.Satendra Pande for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & A.A. Sayed, JJ. P.C. : DATE : 12[th] July, 2011. 1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the question raised in this appeal by the Revenue. 2.Perusal of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, particularly para-6 thereof, shows that the penalty has been deleted on the ground that the dis-allowances made by the assessing officer have been deleted by the Tribunal. The contention of the Revenue is that against the order of the Tribunal deleting dis-allowance, the Revenue has filed an appeal before this court and the same is pending. 3.In our opinion, making a wrong claim in the return of income cannot be a ground for imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as it neither amounts to furnishing inaccurate particulars nor amounts to concealment of income. In this view of the matter, we see no merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.A. Sayed, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, 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