In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 v. Mr.n.a.kazi For The, the High Court (2011) decided the matter.
Issue: Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961 is the question raised in this appeal?
Decision: Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
ttm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.6045 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax-8
.. Appellant
Vs.Smt.Madhu Gupta
.. Respondent.
Mr.N.A.Kazi for the appellant
Mr.Pankaj Toprani for the respondent
CORAM: J.P. DEVADHAR & K.K. TATED, JJ.DATE: 12TH OCTOBER, 2011.
P.C.
1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961 is the question raised in this appeal?
2. The ITAT has deleted the penalty on the erroneous assumption that
the quantum addition has been deleted by the ITAT when in fact the assessee has accepted the quantum addition made by the Assessing Officer. In this view of the matter, by consent, the impugned order dt.31.3.2010 passed by the ITAT in ITA No.6144/Mum/05 relating to A.Y. 2000-2001 is quashed and set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the ITAT for fresh decision in accordance with law.
3. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(K.K. TATED, 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.