The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 3, Mumbai v. M/S.gooddeal Investment & Finance Limited
High Court
03 Feb 2010 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 3, Mumbai v. M/S.gooddeal Investment & Finance Limited
Date of order
03 Feb 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 3, Mumbai v. M/S.gooddeal Investment & Finance Limited, the High Court (2010) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: DATE : 3[rd] February, 2010 P.C. : 1.The only question that is raised in the appeal at the stage of admission was, whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Decision: The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
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 BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.593 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 3, Mumbai
..Appellant.
Versus
M/s.Gooddeal Investment & Finance Limited
..Respondent.
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.None for the respondent.
CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ.
DATE : 3[rd] February, 2010
P.C. :
1.The only question that is raised in the appeal at the stage of admission was, whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was admitted on 16[th] September 2008 and it has now been placed for hearing.
2.The Tribunal has followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh, 249 ITR 670 and the judgment of this Court in CIT V/s. Orient Syntax (Income Tax Appeal No.1069 of 2000) decided on 25[th] July 2005. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Prithipal Singh has been held in a
subsequent judgment in the case of Goldcoin Health Food Private Limited, 304 ITR 308 (S.C.) not to lay down the correct position of law. In the circumstances, the appeal would have to be allowed and the proceedings would have to be remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration on merits.
3.In the circumstances, in order to facilitate a fresh order on remand, the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 12[th] July 2006 is set aside and the proceedings are remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(J.P. Devadhar, J.)
(Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, 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.