Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Upendr...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Upendra V.mithani

High Court 05 Aug 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Upendra V.mithani
Date of order
05 Aug 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Upendra V.mithani, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L)NO.1860 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant Vs. Upendra V.Mithani ..Respondent Ms.Suchitra Kamble for appellant. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA &J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. 5TH AUGUST, 2009 DATE : P.C. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. 2.The issue involved in the appeal revolves around deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. The Tribunal has concurred with the view taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A). The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has rightly taken a view that no penalty can be imposed if the facts and circumstances are equally consistent with the hypothesis that the amount does not represent concealed income as with the hypothesis that it does. If the assessee gives an explanation which is unproved but not disproved, i.e. it is not accepted but circumstances do not lead to the reasonable and positive inference that the assessee’s case is false. The view taken by the Tribunal is a reasonable and possible view. The appeal is without any substance. The same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)
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