Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/180/1999 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No. 180 of 1999
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
=================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=================================================
THE
DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - Appellant
Versus
ARAT
ELECTRO CHEMICALS LTD. - Opponent
=================================================
Appearance :
MR
BB NAIK for Appellant:
MR SN SOPARKAR for Opponent
:
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 18/03/2009
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA)
Vide
order dated 21/2/2000 appeal came to be admitted, formulating the
following substantial question of law :-
Whether,
the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in cancelling the
penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) out of the penalty sustained
by the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeal) ?
As
the order of admission indicates, appeal was admitted because
quantum of appeal filed by Revenue being Tax Appeal No. 19 of 1999
had been admitted for the very same Assessment Year. The Tribunal
having deleted the addition in relation to processing charges of
Rs.12,54,766/-, held that the penalty of Rs.10=00 lakhs sustained by
Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 271 (1)(c) of Income Tax Act,
1961 (the Act) cannot be upheld.
Today,
by a separate order of even date between the same parties, for the
very same Assessment Year, the Tribunal’s order on this count in
quantum proceedings being Question No.3 in Tax Appeal No. 19 of 1999
has been answered against the Revenue, holding that Tribunal had not
committed any error in deleting the addition in question. In the
circumstances, the impugned order of Tribunal deleting penalty under
Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act does not call for interference.
Accordingly, the question in the present appeal is answered in the
affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Assessee and against the
Revenue. Appeal stands disposed of according, with no order as to
costs.
[
D.A. MEHTA, J ]
[
S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J]
/vgn
Top