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

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.purshottam Transport

High Court 14 Oct 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.purshottam Transport
Date of order
14 Oct 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.purshottam Transport, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: In this view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed in limine for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L)NO. 2280 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.M/s.Purshottam Transport ..Appellant ..Respondent Ms.Suchitra Kamble for appellant. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. 14TH OCTOBER, 2009 DATE : P.C. 1.Heard. Perused appeal. 2.The question sought to be raised in the appeal relates to deletion of the penalty levied u/s.158BFA(2) of the Income Tax Act,1961. Learned Counsel for the appellant sought to argue that the Assessing Officer has no discretion to waive penalty. He has got to impose it. The said issue has been considered by the Tribunal in paragraph No.10 of its order, which reads as under: “10.On the merits of the imposition of the penalty, we are of the view that explanation offered by the assessee deserves due consideration. As has been rightly contended on behalf of the assessee, it cannot be said that the assessee knowingly and deliberately filed inaccurate information or concealed particulars of income. Determination of undisclosed income has been made on the basis of estimates. It is also not possible to foresee the quantum of undisclosed income for the block period. In those circumstances, nature of the addition made has to be seen. As already noticed, additions have been made only in respect of nature of undisclosed income which was duly disclosed by the assessee in the return for the block period. Additions were made only on estimates. In the light of the explanation offered by the assessee, we are of the view that this is not a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s.158BFA(2) of the Act. In the circumstances, we direct that the penalty imposed be cancelled. “ 3.Considering the reasons given, we find no fault with the view taken by the Tribunal. The view taken by the Tribunal is a reasonable and possible view. In this view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed in limine for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.
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