The income tax appeal by the revenue was dismissed by the High Court of Bombay because the revenue's quantum appeal challenging the principal addition was already dismissed in a prior order. The court held that the foundation for sustaining the present penalty appeal no longer existed.
The appeal was dismissed with no order as to cost.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
11. os itxa 1771-17.doc
R.M. AMBERKAR
(Private Secretary)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O.O.C.J.
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1771 OF 2017
Commissioner of Income Tax - LTU .. Appellant
Versus
M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd
.. Respondent
CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN &
MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : FEBRUARY 4, 2020.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Singh, learned standing counsel, revenue for
2. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,
1 of 3
11. os itxa 1771-17.doc
3. The appeal has been preferred projecting the following question as substantial question of law:-
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in deleting penalty of Rs. 1,14,42,717.00 levied u/S. 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of bogus professional fees paid to Shri. S.K. Gupta?"
4. From the above, it is evident that the issue involved in the present appeal is deletion by the Tribunal of the penalty imposed on the respondent - assessee by the Assessing OfÏcer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
5. At the outset, Mr. Singh fairly submits that in the quantum appeal being Income Tax Appeal No. 1056 of 2016, this Court by order dated 30.1.2019 had dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue upholding the order passed by the Tribunal.
6. Be it stated that Tribunal had deleted the addition made by the Assessing OfÏcer. It may also be stated that penalty was imposed following addition made by the Assessing OfÏcer. Imposition of penalty by the Assessing OfÏcer was interfered in appeal against which the present
2 of 3
11. os itxa 1771-17.doc
appeal arises.
7. In view of the fact that quantum appeal by the revenue
has been dismissed by this Court, the very foundation for sustaining the present appeal no longer survives.
8. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. However,
there shall be no order as to cost.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] [ UJJAL BHUYAN, J. ]
Digitally signed by Ravindra Ravindra M. Amberkar M. Date: Amberkar 2020.02.06 10:31:19 +0530
3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act?
Whether the present appeal survives in light of the dismissal of the quantum appeal by this Court?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Income Tax - LTU
M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd
UJJAL BHUYAN
MILIND N. JADHAV
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court