The Commissioner Of Income Tax-V v. Prime Paper & Engg.pvt.ltd
High Court
12 Dec 2014 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-V v. Prime Paper & Engg.pvt.ltd
Date of order
12 Dec 2014
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-V v. Prime Paper & Engg.pvt.ltd, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: To our mind, the penalty has been rightly deleted.
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.1644 OF 2012
…
The Commissioner of Income Tax-Vv/sPrime Paper & Engg.Pvt.Ltd.
...Appellant
...Respondent
…
Mr.Tejveer Singh for the Appellant.
...
P.C.
CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI &
A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATED : 12 DECEMBER 2014
The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of
Rs.40,06,600 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. That was deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on Assessee's Appeal. The Revenue carried the matter to the Tribunal, which has confirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence this further Appeal.
2.The Tribunal as also the Commissioner has concluded that there was no material on record to levy and impose a penalty as ingredients of section 271(1)(c) were not satisfied. This finding of fact was rendered also by relying on the order passed by the Tribunal on the earlier occasion and on remand. The Tribunal as
itxa-1644-12.doc
also the Commissioner found that in the light of the disclosure made by the Assessee and fairly, he succeeded in the quantum proceedings. In such circumstances, there was no warrant to impose any penalty. To our mind, the penalty has been rightly deleted. The finding of fact cannot be said to be perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. There is no merit in this Appeal. It is dismissed. No costs.
(A.A. SAYED, J.)
(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,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.