THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ARVIND N. CHOKSEY

PDF · subscribers
ITA/54/1999HC Bombay06 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, in its oral judgment, referred to a Revenue Circular dated 27th March, 2000. Based on this circular and the fact that the tax liability in dispute (Rs. 84,960) was less than Rs. 2 lakhs, the Court held that the Rule stood discharged. This implies that the Revenue's appeal or application was not pressed or was disposed of based on the circular's threshold for litigation, without delving into the merits of the ITAT's decision on the penalty. The specific reasoning for the ITAT's cancellation of the penalty by the AO is not discussed by the High Court, as the matter was decided on the basis of the circular.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Petitioner) filed an application before the Bombay High Court challenging an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had cancelled a penalty of Rs. 84,960 levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment year in question was 1980-81. The application was admitted on a specific question of law concerning the ITAT's justification for cancelling the penalty. The dispute involved a tax liability of Rs. 84,960, which was stated to be less than Rs. 2 lakhs.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was justified in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 84,960 levied by the AO under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law). The Petitioner (Commissioner of Income Tax) likely argued that the ITAT erred in cancelling the penalty, implying that the conditions for levying the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) were met. The Respondent (Arvind N. Choksey) likely argued that the ITAT's decision to cancel the penalty was correct, possibly on grounds of lack of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, or that the penalty was not leviable for other reasons. The judgment does not explicitly detail the arguments of each side beyond the question framed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

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 ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.54 OF 1999 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.54 OF 1999 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.54 OF 1999 The Commissioner of Income tax ..Petitioner. V/s. Arvind N. Choksey ..Respondent. Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for Petitioner. Mr.B.V.Jhaveri for respondent. CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.

DATED : 6TH MARCH, 2007. DATED : 6TH MARCH, 2007. DATED : 6TH MARCH, 2007.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. The above application has been admitted on the following question of law:- " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned ITAT was justified in cancelling the penalty of Rs.84,960/- levied by the A.O. U/s.271(1) (c) of the I.T.Act, 1961 ? " 2. The application pertains to the assessment year 1980-81. 3. We have perused the order of the ITAT. From CNR No : HCBM020010011999 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:55:57

- = : 2 : = - the question, it is apparent that the tax liability is only Rs.84,960/- and the same is less than Rs.2 lakhs. In view of the Revenue Circular dated 27th March, 2000, Rule stands discharged. 4. Application stands disposed of. (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:55:57 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 →