Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/1948/2009 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No. 1948 of 2009
=================================================
COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX-IV - Appellant(s)
Versus
VIDYA
DECOR PVT LTD - Opponent(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
MRS
MAUNA M BHATT for Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Opponent(s) :
1,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE
MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date
: 29/03/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. Revenue
is in appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 17.4.2009
raising following question for our consideration:-
“Whether
the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in modifying the
order passed by CIT(A) and thereby restricting the penalty of
Rs.7,56,272/- levied by the Assessing Officer
u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 to Rs.1,87,022/-?”
2. The
issue pertains to penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax
Act, 1961. After quantum additions, the Assessing Officer imposed
penalty against the respondent assessee under the said provision,
which was upheld by CIT(Appeals). Assessee carried the issue further
before Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal for short). The
Tribunal by impugned judgment partly upheld the penalty but deleted
in part observing that no penalty can be imposed fully. Facts and
circumstances are equally consistent with the hypothesis that the
amount does not represent concealed income. The Tribunal, on facts,
found that the assessee’s explanation was not found to be false and
no material was brought on record to show that explanations were not
reasonably acceptable. On these observations, the Tribunal deleted
penalty of Rs.7,20,000 and Rs.2,70,000/- towards claim of deposits
and advances. Simultaneously, the Tribunal confirmed the penalty on
sum of Rs.3,25,256/- regarding bogus purchases finding that the
explanation of the assessee was not genuine.
3. Having
heard learned counsel for the Revenue and perusing the orders on
record, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal
as the Tribunal has gone through the factual findings with respect to
reasonableness of the explanation of the assessee. Such factual
findings not being perverse, do not give rise to any substantial
question of law. Tax Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
(Akil
Kureshi, J. )
(Ms.
Sonia Gokani, J. )
sudhir
Top