DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KRISHNA TEXTILES
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court observed that the amount involved in the present case was small, with a revenue effect of less than Rs. 1 lakh. Citing CBDT Instruction No. 1979 dated 27th March, 2000 and 02 of 2005, the Court held that the revenue ought not to have filed appeals where the total revenue effect is less than Rs. 1 lakh. Consequently, the appeals were not entertained. The questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The appeals were dismissed on the ground of the smallness of the amount. Liberty was granted to revive the appeals in case of difficulty. No specific finding was given on the merits of the penalty deletion concerning Explanation -1 to Section 271(1) of the Income Tax Act.
What were the facts?
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (appellant-revenue) filed three appeals (Tax Appeal Nos. 782 to 784 of 2006) before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. These appeals challenged the order dated 18.10.2005 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench, in ITA Nos. 766/Ahd/1998, 767/Ahd/1998, and 812/Ahd/1998. The ITAT's order had deleted a penalty previously imposed by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – II, Surat. The appeals were admitted by the High Court on 15.11.2006, and a substantial question of law was framed.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in deleting penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – II, Surat, without considering the provisions of Explanation -1 to Section 271(1) of the Income Tax Act? Assessee's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The High Court's decision was based on other grounds. Revenue's contentions: The revenue contended that the ITAT erred in deleting the penalty without considering Explanation -1 to Section 271(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
O/TAXAP/782/2006 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 782 of 2006 TO TAX APPEAL NO. 784 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER
================================================================ 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 ? ================================================================ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX....Appellant(s) Versus KRISHNA TEXTILES....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR SUDHIR M MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MRS SWATI SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER Page 1 of 3
O/TAXAP/782/2006 JUDGMENT
Date : 20/11/2014
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. By way of these appeals, the appellant-revenue has challenged the order dated 18.10.2005 passed by the Income- tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in ITA Nos. 766/Ahd/1998, 767/Ahd/1998 & 812/Ahd/1998. 2. While admitting these appeals on 15.11.2006, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law: “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in deleting penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – II, Surat, without considering the provisions of Explanation -1 to Section 271(1) of the Income Tax Act?” 3. In our view, the amount involved in the present case is a small one and the revenue effect is less than Rs. 1 lakh, and therefore, as per CDBT Instruction No. 1979 dated 27th March, 2000 and 02 of 2005, the revenue ought not to have come in appeal where the total revenue effect is less than Rs. 1 lakh, and therefore, these appeals are not entertained. The questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. These appeals are dismissed on the ground of smallness of amount. Liberty to revive in case of difficulty. Page 2 of 3
O/TAXAP/782/2006 JUDGMENT (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (K.J.THAKER, J) divya Page 3 of 3
More judgments on Section 271(1)
- Valsan Chiyyabath Narayanan, Thrissur vs DCIT Circle 1(1)& Tps, ThrissurITA 82/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed25 Aug 2026AY 2016-17
- Valsan Chiyyabath Narayanan, Thrissur vs DCIT Circle 1(1)& Tps, ThrissurITA 81/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed25 Aug 2026AY 2015-16
- Valsan Chiyyabath Narayanan, Thrissur vs DCIT Circle 1(1)& Tps, ThrissurITA 80/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed25 Aug 2026AY 2014-15
- Valsan Chiyyabath, Thrissur vs DCIT Circle 1(1)& Tps, ThrissurITA 28/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed25 Aug 2026AY 2013-14
- Neeta Agarwal, Agra vs Income Tax Officer, 2(1)(2), AgraITA 213/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Jashwant Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA And A4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
- Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026