The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Late Shri Harshad S. Mehta. ...Respnodent
High Court
05 Mar 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Late Shri Harshad S. Mehta. ...Respnodent
Date of order
05 Mar 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Late Shri Harshad S. Mehta. ...Respnodent, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: Though several questions have been framed as substantial questions of law the real controversy is whether the Tribunal was correct in law in dealing with the penalty levied on the ground that no penalty under Section 27(1)(c) can be levied when Return of Income is not furnished.
Decision: In the light of that there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.1890 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax.....Appellant
Vs.
Late Shri Harshad S. Mehta. ...Respnodent
Mr. P.S. Sahadevan, fo the Appellant.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&R.S.MOHITE, JJ.DATED: 5TH MARCH, 2009
CORAM: F.I.
R.S.MOHITE, JJ.
DATED: 5TH MARCH, 2009
P.C.:
P.C.:
. Though several questions have been framed as
substantial questions of law the real controversy is
whether the Tribunal was correct in law in dealing
with the penalty levied on the ground that no
penalty under Section 27(1)(c) can be levied when
Return of Income is not furnished. These are
matters before 1st April, 2003. A similar issue had
come up for consideration before this Court in CIT,Central -II vs. M/s.Growmore Research & AssetManagement Ltd., ITXA No.675 of 2008 decided on 10thFebruary, 2009 and we have taken the view that
before 1st April, 2003 the penalty could have been
imposed only in respect of assessee who had not been
previously assessed. Admittedly in the instant case
the assessee was previously assessed. Considering
the said fact the question of law will be squarely
covered by the judgment in Gromore Research & Asset
Management (supra). In the light of that there is
no merit in this appeal which is accordingly
dismissed.
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.