PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. AAKASH OIL SERVICE PVT LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. The Tribunal had deleted the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the Revenue had lost the quantum appeal. The disallowance of excess depreciation claimed on trucks and truck-mounted equipment amounting to Rs. 64,06,050/= was deleted by the Tribunal, and this decision was confirmed by the High Court in a separate appeal (Tax Appeal No. 352/2018). The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's observation that once the disallowance in the quantum appeal is deleted and confirmed, there is no basis for levying a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, has appealed against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad "B" Bench. The ITAT had deleted a penalty of Rs. 21,77,416/- levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2011-2012. The penalty was related to excess depreciation claimed on trucks and truck-mounted equipment, amounting to Rs. 64,06,050/=. The Revenue's appeal before the High Court challenges the ITAT's deletion of this penalty. The High Court notes that the Revenue had lost the quantum appeal before the ITAT, and a subsequent appeal filed by the Revenue against the ITAT's quantum order before the High Court (Tax Appeal No. 352/2018) was also dismissed.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty of Rs. 21,77,416/- levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? The Revenue contends that the penalty was wrongly deleted by the ITAT. The Revenue's argument is that the deletion of the penalty was erroneous. The ITAT deleted the penalty on the ground that the Revenue had lost the quantum appeal. The High Court notes that the Revenue had lost the quantum appeal before the ITAT, and its subsequent appeal against the ITAT's quantum order was dismissed by the High Court. The Revenue's appeal before the High Court is against the ITAT's order deleting the penalty.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH)
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad “B” Bench, Ahmedabad in ITA No.3071/Ahd/2015 for the Assessment Year 2011-2012, by which the learned Tribunal has deleted the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Revenue has preferred the present Appeal with the proposed question of law :- “Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty of Rs.21,77,416/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act?” C/TAXAP/694/2018 ORDER
Heard learned Advocate Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt appearing for the appellant – Revenue.
It is not in dispute that the learned Tribunal has deleted the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that in the quantum Appeal, the Revenue has lost. It is reported that against the order passed by the learned Tribunal in a quantum Appeal, which was against the Revenue, the Revenue carried the matter before this Court, by way of Tax Appeal No.352/2018 and the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Revenue. Thus, in the quantum Appeal the Revenue has lost.
Under the circumstances, in a quantum Appeal, when the Revenue has lost and the decision of the Tribunal in deleting disallowance of excess depreciation claimed on truck and truck mounted equipments of Rs.64,06,050/= has been confirmed and as has been rightly observed by the learned Tribunal, that thereafter there is no question of levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, no substantial question of law arises in the present Appeal. C/TAXAP/694/2018 ORDER
Therefore, the present Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. (M.R. SHAH, J) (A.Y. KOGJE, J) Caroline
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA Rep Thr The Intelligence Officer, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence (Dggi)Jharkhand · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Om.S.R. Construction, Through Its Proprietor Mr. Kuldeep Sharma vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Commissioner, Commerical Tax DepartmentJharkhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026