Gujarat High Court High Court

Commissioner vs Unknown on 1 March, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Commissioner vs Unknown on 1 March, 2011
Author: Akil Kureshi,&Nbsp;Ms Gokani,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

TAXAP/1104/2009	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

TAX
APPEAL No. 1104 of 2009
 

 
 
=========================================================

 

COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX GANDHINAGAR - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

MULTIMEDIA
FRONTIERS 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
: 01/03/2011 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

Revenue
seeks to challenge an order dated 12.12.2008 passed by ITAT. Issue
pertains to penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
The Assessing Officer having imposed such penalty, the issue was
carried in appeal. CIT(Appeals) deleted penalty upon which Revenue
went in appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal confirmed view of
CIT(Appeals), hence the present appeal.

From
the perusal of the document on record, we find that tribunal had
given sufficient reasons for upholding deletion of penalty. It was
found that there was no concealment of particulars of income or
furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by assessee. Tribunal
relied on decision of this Court in case of National Textiles v.
CIT reported in (2001) 249 ITR 125 (Guj), upheld the decision of
CIT (Appeals). When the tribunal found that revised returns filed by
assessee was bona fide, assessee had disclosed all material facts
relevant for the computation of income, order deleting penalty in our
opinion calls for no interference. Tax Appeal is dismissed.

(Akil
Kureshi,J.)

(Ms.

Sonia Gokani,J.)

(raghu)

   

Top