Dismissed

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Iii v. Bhavesh C.Mehta

Bombay HC14 Dec 2015ITXA/2127/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court dismissed an income tax appeal, holding that the question of law framed by the appellant did not raise any substantial question of law, relying on an earlier order regarding the same party and identical grievance for another assessment year.

What did the court decide?

None granted. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law was found.

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Iii Vs Bhavesh C.Mehta — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

2127-13-itxa=.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2127 OF 2013

¶4

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Thane .. Appellant v/s. Bhavesh C. Mehta ..Respondent

¶5

Mr. Tejveer Singh for the appellant

¶6

CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & G.S. KULKARNI, J.J. DATED : 14^th DECEMBER, 2015.

¶7

P.C.

¶8

This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 19^th April, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai.

¶9

The impugned order dated 19^th April, 2013 disposes of proceedings initiated against the Respondent Assessee for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 . This appeal relates to Assessment year 2007-08.

1 of 2

Uday S. Jagtap

2127-13-itxa=.doc

Mr. Tejveer Singh, learned Counsel for the Revenue urges following question of law for our consideration :-

¶14

“(i) Whether the Tribunal erred in law in failing to appreciate the penal provisions of Section 271(1)(c) are attracted in the case of the assessee as the concealment of income was detected by the A.O. after detailed inquiry?”

¶15

The Revenue had preferred Income Tax Appeal No.2091 of 2013 in this Court from the impugned order to the extent it related to the Assessment Year 2006-07. This Court by order dated 23^rd November, 2015 came to the conclusion that the question as framed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. The grievance of the Revenue in their Appeal being Appeal No.2091 of 2013 as well as in this appeal are identical. Consequently, for the reasons set out in our order dated 23^rd November, 2015 dealing with the Revenue's appeal for the Assessment Year 2006-07, the questions as framed in the present appeal also do not give rise to any substantial question of law.

¶16

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶17

(G.S. KULKARNI, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)

¶18

2 of 2

¶19

Uday S. Jagtap

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Iii v. Bhavesh C.Mehta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Iii v. Bhavesh C.Mehta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharti Jaiprakash Gajaria Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (International TRANSACTION)-2(3)(1) and 2 Ors.

Mrs. Bharti Jaiprakash Gajaria Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Transaction) and 2 Ors.

The Commissioner of Income Tax I, Pune Vs Bank of Maharashtra, Lokmangal

Commissioner of Income TAX-21 Vs M/S Sai Shiv Developers

Commissioner of Income TAX-21 Vs M/S Sai Shiv Developers

The Commissioner of Income Tax -Iii, Pune Vs Shri Shriram Hiralal Soni