In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri. Mabahal S.shetty, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: Admit on the following questions: "(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in reducing the quantum of penalty levied by Addl.
Decision: The Revenue to take steps to remove office objections within six weeks from today failing which the appeal stands dismissed for non prosecution without further orders from this court.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 285 OF 2009
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 285 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellants
Versus
Shri. Mabahal S.Shetty .... Respondent
Mr. S.K. Bhatnagar with Mr.N.R. Prajapati for
Appellants.
None for Respondent.
CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, &
R.S. MOHITE, JJ.
DATED: MARCH 03, 2009
P.C.
P.C.
. Admit on the following questions:
"(a) Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case the Hon’ble
Tribunal was justified in reducing the
quantum of penalty levied by Addl. CIT u/s.
271D by stating that the penalty be levied
after adjustment of permissible amount of
Rs.20,000/- which is relevant to section
269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
(b) Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case the Hon’ble
Tribunal has erred in interpretation of
Section 271D as they clearly state that the
Assessee shall be liable to pay by way of
penalty, a sum equal to the amount
taken/accepted or repaid?
(c) Can the amount of penalty leviable u/s.
271D as mentioned in the Sections be
interpreted to mean an amount which is above
the basic exemption limit of Rs.20,000/-?"
. Respondent waives service.
. The Revenue to take steps to remove office
objections within six weeks from today failing which
the appeal stands dismissed for non prosecution
without further orders from this court.
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.