COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. GIRISHKUMAR SHANTILAL PATEL

ITR/149/1994HC GujaratGJHC24020226199405 October 2005Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Revenue) filed an Income Tax Reference before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, challenging an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had deleted a penalty of Rs. 108,652 levied by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment year in question was 1982-83, corresponding to Samvant Year 2037. The respondent-assessee, Girishkumar Shantilal Patel, was not served with notice. The High Court heard the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the applicant-revenue.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court answered the reference in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The Court reasoned that the cause for which the penalty was levied ceased to exist, given the High Court's prior decision in quantum proceedings (Income Tax Reference No. 29 of 1991) which upheld the ITAT's finding that the transaction did not result in taxable capital gains. Consequently, the ITAT was deemed to be correct in law and on facts in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The reference was disposed of accordingly.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the penalty levied by the ITO under Section 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 108,652? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: Not recorded as the assessee was not served. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, drew attention to a previous order of the High Court dated 7th August, 2003, in Income Tax Reference No. 29 of 1991. In that quantum proceedings, the High Court had upheld the ITAT's order which held that the transaction in question did not result in taxable capital gains. The revenue implicitly argued that if the underlying transaction was not taxable, then the penalty for concealment of income related to that transaction should also be deleted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 256(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR/149/1994 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No.149 of 1994 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI ===================================================== 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 ? ===================================================== COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - Applicant(s) Versus GIRISHKUMAR SHANTILAL PATEL - Respondent(s) ===================================================== Appearance : MR MANISH R BHATT for Applicant(s) : 1, NOTICE UNSERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, ===================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 05/10/2005 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI)

1.

The Income-tax Appellate

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 24,918 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →