Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax Iv v. M/S...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax Iv v. M/S Abhijit Trading Company

High Court 21 Jul 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax Iv v. M/S Abhijit Trading Company
Date of order
21 Jul 2011
Assessment year(s)
1995-95
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax Iv v. M/S Abhijit Trading Company, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: 1.In all these cases, the question of law raised by the Revenue is, whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty levied under section 271(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Decision: In the result, all the appeals are dismissed.

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 JDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL(L) NO. 908 OF 2007WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 910 OF 2007WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 913 OF 2007WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 909 OF 2007WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 911 OF 2007WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 912 OF 2007. The Commissioner of Income Tax IV...Appellant.Vs.M/s Abhijit Trading Company..RespondentMr. Vimal Gupta for the Appellant.Mr. R.S. Soni for the Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 21ST JULY, 2011. P.C. 1.In all these cases, the question of law raised by the Revenue is, whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty levied under section 271(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.Perusal of the order of the ITAT shows that the ITAT has deleted the penalty by observing that non filing of Audit Reports within the specified time under section 44AB of the Act for the assessment year in question was due to delay in submission of the books in A.Y. 1995-95 due to non receipt of TDS certificates and that the delay was reasonable and in the said circumstances the penalty imposed under section 271 (B) was not justified. 3. In our opinion, the discretion exercised by the ITAT is reasonable and does not call for interference. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed. ( 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