Case LawHigh Court › The Principal Commissioenr Of Income Tax...

The Principal Commissioenr Of Income Tax (Central), Surat v. Avantis Enterprise

High Court 23 Jul 2019 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
The Principal Commissioenr Of Income Tax (Central), Surat v. Avantis Enterprise
Date of order
23 Jul 2019
Assessment year(s)
2013-14
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Principal Commissioenr Of Income Tax (Central), Surat v. Avantis Enterprise, the High Court (2019) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: This Tax Appeal also fails and is hereby dismissed.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/TAX APPEAL NO. 499 of 2019 ============================================= THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIOENR OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT VersusAVANTIS ENTERPRISE ============================================= Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1============================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALAand HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C. RAO Date : 23/07/2019 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1.This Tax Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act, 1961”) is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat Bench, Surat, dated 25.01.2019 in the ITA No.2970/Ahd/2016 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2.The Revenue has proposed the following three substantial questions of law for the consideration of this Court: “[A] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty of Rs.2,28,95,820/- levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. [B] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal erred in not appreciating that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is attracted for concealment detected in the course of any proceeding under the Act, which cannot be limited to assessment proceeding and should have been held to include survey proceeding u/s 133A(1)? [C] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal erred in not appreciating that even clause (a) of explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c) does not refer to returned income so as to limit the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) with reference to difference between tax on Assessed Income and Returned Income?” 3.We dismiss this Tax Appeal in view of the order dictated today by us in the Tax Appeal No.498 of 2019. This Tax Appeal also fails and is hereby dismissed. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (A. C. RAO, J) Dolly
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