THE COMM. OF INCOME TAX vs. OMPRAKASH V. DUJODWALA (HUF)

PDF · subscribers
ITA/46/1999HC Bombay05 March 2007Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE J.P. DEVADHAR2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the findings recorded by the ITAT were findings of fact. Consequently, the Court concluded that there was no substantial question of law involved in the matter. The ITAT's order was based on its factual findings that the assessees filed revised returns in light of an implicit assurance from the CIT to waive penalties, and that there was no material casting doubt on the genuineness of the gifts. The Court found that the ITAT's order was purely based on facts and did not raise any legal issue. Therefore, the application filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Bombay City XIV, filed an application before the Bombay High Court challenging an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had deleted penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The matter pertains to the Assessment Year 1979-1980. The ITAT's order, dated August 21, 1998, found that a letter from the CIT requesting the assessees to file a petition under Section 273A implied an assurance to waive penalties. The assessees had filed revised returns based on this assurance, and the ITAT observed no material doubt on the genuineness of gifts, nor any impediment to the department making further inquiries. The High Court admitted the application on April 12, 1999, concerning a substantial question of law.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in each of the cases. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the ITAT's reasoning, as quoted in the judgment, suggests that the assessee's revised returns were filed based on an implicit assurance from the CIT to waive penalties, and there was no material to doubt the genuineness of gifts. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue before the High Court. However, the application filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax indicates that the revenue was challenging the ITAT's deletion of penalties.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 273A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.46 OF 1999 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.46 OF 1999 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.46 OF 1999 The Commissioner of Income Tax Bombay City XIV, Bombay .. Applicant V/s Omprakash V.Dujodwala .. Respondent Mr.A.S.Rao for the Applicant. Ms.Beena Pillai i/by Mr.D.M.Harish & Co. for the Respondent. CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.

DATE : 5th March, 2007. DATE : 5th March, 2007. DATE : 5th March, 2007. JUDGMENT:- (PER DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) JUDGMENT:- (PER DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) JUDGMENT:- (PER DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. This application was admitted on 12th April, 1999 with regard to the following substantial question of law:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in deleting the penalty levied U/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, in each of the above cases". 2. The matter pertains to the Assessment Year 1979-1980. Perused the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 21.08.1998 wherein paragraph No.5 reads as under:- "5. It may be observed that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the letter of CIT dated 5.3.84 requesting the assessees to file a petition u/s.273A as an implicit assurance to waive the penalties. It further observed that the assessees came forward with revised returns only in the light of this assurance and so the penalties in question were not leviable. It also observed that, there was no material with the department which cast any doubts on the genuineness of the gifts. It also observed that, nothing CNR No : HCBM020018311999 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:59:15

prevented the department from making further enquiries into the genuineness of the case, notwithstanding the fact that the assessees addressed their letter to the CIT requesting for settlement. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal is based only on finding of facts and no question of law arises from the Tribunal order. The applications are accordingly rejected. 3. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are the findings of facts. In view thereof, there is no substantial question of law involved in this matter. Hence, Application stands dismissed. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:59:15 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →