Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/190/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No. 190 of
2010
=========================================================
COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX - GANDHINAGAR - Appellant(s)
Versus
ARVIND
S LODHA - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MANISH BHATT, SR. ADVOCATE, 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
: 09/05/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI)
1. The
assessee filed a return declaring total income of Rs.15,04,450/- and
the assessment was completed. Subsequently, a Survey, at the business
premises of the assessee, was carried out under Section-133A of the
Income Tax Act, 1956, wherein it disclosed income of Rs.15,00,000/-
from undisclosed sources. The Assessing Officer, therefore, made
certain additions and proceedings under Section-271(1)(c)of the
Income Tax were initiated.
2. The
assessee, respondent, having been aggrieved by the said order
challenged the same before the CIT Appeals which deleted the penalty.
The Department preferred appeal against the said order of the CIT
Appeals and the appellate Tribunal concurred with the findings of the
CIT Appeals and dismissed the appeal of the Department.
3. Challenging
the impugned order of the Tribunal, dated 08.05.2009, the present
appeal is preferred before this Court, raising the following question
of law:
“Whether the
Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the
order passed by CIT(A) in canceling the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c)
of the I.T. Act?” ”
4. Upon
hearing Mr. Manish Bhatt, learned Counsel for the appellant and upon,
closely, examining the orders of the adjudicating authorities, it can
be seen that the Tribunal has rightly arrived at a conclusion that
the assessee had filed a return of income, declaring his total income
at Rs.15,04,450/-. There was nothing that was concealed. In the
absence of any concealment of any particular source of income,
proceedings under Section-271(1)(c) would not be attracted. It also
had rightly held that the levying of penalty on the amount of
Rs.15,00,000/-, in such circumstances, was not justifiable. The
explanation of the assessee, which was not taken into consideration
by the Assessing Officer, also was duly considered by the Tribunal
and it had held that in the absence of any concealment, the impugned
penalty deserves to be canceled. The order of the Tribunal, which
concurred with the findings of the CIT Appeals, is sound and calls
for no interference from this Court, with no question of law for
determination of this Court. This appeal, therefore, deserves to be
dismissed and is DISMISSED.
(AKIL
KURESHI,J.)
(Ms.
SONIA GOKANI,J.)
Umesh/
Top