The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri Popatlal M. Chordia, Aurangabad
High Court
21 Jan 2015 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · hcaurdb
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri Popatlal M. Chordia, Aurangabad
Date of order
21 Jan 2015
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri Popatlal M. Chordia, Aurangabad, the High Court (2015) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Hence, appeal stands dismissed. [V.K.
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
1
ita38.14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 38 OF 2014
The Commissioner of Income Tax,..AppellantAurangabad.
Versus
Shri Popatlal M. Chordia, Aurangabad. .. Respondent
Mr Alok Sharma, Advocate for the appellantMr Vakil, Advocate for the respondent
P.C. :-
CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE &
V. K. JADHAV, JJ.
DATED: 21.01.2015
1.This appeal challenges the judgment and order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune, Bench-’B’, Pune, in Income Tax Appeals No. 711/PN/2011. By this judgment, the appeal of the respondent herein was allowed and the explanation he submitted on facts was accepted to avert penalty proceedings.
2.In brief, the facts of these cases are as under: -
In search and seizure proceeding, the Assessing Officer found certain entries in certain books of accounts. The Assessing Officer recorded statements of assessee’s son about the entries and he disclosed that certain persons advanced loans to the assessee in cash, and in due course of time, the amounts were returned. Subsequently, the assessee took a stand that the amounts which he received from those two persons were not loans. They were earnest amount which he had received towards oral agreement for sale of certain property. The authorities below did not accept this stand and held that the respondent/ assessee is liable to pay penalty under Section 271 D and 271 E of the Income Tax Act. In the appeals filed by the assessee, the ITAT held that in the facts and circumstances of the cases as well as in view of the harsh nature of section 271 of the Income Tax Act, they were more inclined to accept the explanation given by the assessee than the statements of his son, which was recorded earlier.
3
ita38.14
3.Since the case was decided on facts, we decline to take a different view though it is possible. There is no substantial question of law arising in this appeal. Hence, appeal stands dismissed.
[V.K. JADHAV, J.]
[A.V. NIRGUDE, J.]
snk/2015/JAN15/ita38.14
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.