| Case ID |
d66f4be0-91d0-4691-bd67-120980fea4a8 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT APPEAL NO. 850 OF 2006 |
| Decision Date |
Sep 15, 2007 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1998-99. The court held that since the Assessing Officer did not express any clear satisfaction that penalty proceedings should be initiated against the assessee, the proceedings were deemed vitiated. The court ruled that the assessee had a bona fide belief regarding the interpretation of accounting standards, which justified her filing of the return in the manner she did. Consequently, no substantial question of law arose, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the interpretation of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning penalty for concealment of income. The Delhi High Court examined whether the Assessing Officer had sufficiently indicated the initiation of penalty proceedings against Preeti Aggarwala. The court concluded that the officer's lack of clear satisfaction rendered the penalty proceedings invalid. The judgment emphasized the importance of clarity in assessment orders and recognized the bona fide belief of the taxpayer regarding accounting standards. This case is significant in tax law, particularly for practitioners and taxpayers navigating the nuances of income tax compliance and penalties. Keywords: Income-tax, penalty proceedings, Delhi High Court, bona fide belief, accounting standards. |
| Court |
Delhi High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Madan B. Lokur,
Dr. S. Muralidhar
|
| Lawyers |
Mohit Jolly,
O.P. Sapra,
Sandeep Sapra
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-III
|
| Respondents |
Preeti Aggarwala
|
| Citations |
2009 SLD 2112,
(2009) 309 ITR 140,
(2008) 171 TAXMAN 380
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. [2000] 246 ITR 568,
Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519,
T. Ashok Pai v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 11,
CIT v. Indus Valley Promoters Ltd. [2006] 155 Taxman 223
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
271(1)(c)
|