C I T vs. VIVEK GUPTA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/418/2011HC RajasthanRJHC02036697200831 October 2011Bench: NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN,ARUN MISHRA1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the order passed by the learned ITAT did not warrant any interference. The ITAT had recorded a finding of fact that there was nothing on record to establish that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income or had concealed the income. In view of this factual finding by the ITAT, the High Court concluded that no substantial question of law was involved in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur, appealed against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which had deleted a penalty of Rs. 5,40,000/-. This penalty was initially imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT, in its order, made a finding of fact that there was no evidence on record to demonstrate that the assessee, Shri Vivek Gupta, had furnished inaccurate particulars of income or had concealed his income. The appeal was filed before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that there was no finding of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. The Revenue contended that the ITAT's order was erroneous. The assessee's side was not recorded as having made any arguments in the judgment. The ITAT had found as a fact that there was nothing on record to establish that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income or had concealed the income.

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 FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 418/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR VS. SHRI VIVEK GUPTA. Date: 31.10.2011 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I Mr. R.B. Mathur, for the appellant. Heard counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. The question involved in this appeal is with regard to setting aside order of imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Penalty of Rs. 5,40,000/-, which was imposed by the Assessing Officer, has been deleted by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in separate proceedings. The ITAT has recorded a finding of fact that there is nothing on record to establish that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or has concealed the income. In view of the aforesaid finding recorded by the ITAT, we find that the order passed by learned ITAT does not call for any interference. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Consequently, the appeal is, hereby, dismissed in limine. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I),J. (ARUN MISHRA),CJ. Manoj, S.No. S.40.“All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.” MANOJ NARWANI, JUNIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT.

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 →