Commissioner of Income-tax-LTU v. Reliance Industries Ltd
[Citation -2020-LL-0204-20]

Citation 2020-LL-0204-20
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income-tax-LTU
Respondent Name Reliance Industries Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 04/02/2020
Assessment Year 2006-07
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags imposition of penalty • professional fees • quantum appeal • bogus expenses • deletion of penalty
Bot Summary: This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is preferred by the revenue against the order dated 16.8.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai H Bench, Mumbai in Income Tax Appeal No. 6485/Mum/2014 for the assessment year 2006-07. 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. 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 Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 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. Be it stated that Tribunal had deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Imposition of penalty by the Assessing Officer was interfered in appeal against which the present 2 of 3 11. 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.


11. os itxa 1771-17.doc R.M. AMBERKAR (Private Secretary) IN 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 Mr. Tejveer Singh for Appellant Mr. J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate a/w P.C. Tripathi i/by Raj Darak for Respondent CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 4, 2020. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Singh, learned standing counsel, revenue for appellant and Mr. Mistri, learned senior counsel for respondent - assessee. 2. This appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) is preferred by revenue against order dated 16.8.2016 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai "H" Bench, Mumbai ("Tribunal" for short) in Income Tax Appeal No. 6485/Mum/2014 for assessment year 2006-07. 1 of 3 11. os itxa 1771-17.doc 3. appeal has been preferred projecting following question as substantial question of law:- "Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal is right in deleting penalty of Rs. 1,14,42,717.00 levied u/S. 271(1)(c) of Act on account of bogus professional fees paid to Shri. S.K. Gupta?" 4. From above, it is evident that issue involved in present appeal is deletion by Tribunal of penalty imposed on respondent - assessee by Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of Act. 5. At outset, Mr. Singh fairly submits that in quantum appeal being Income Tax Appeal No. 1056 of 2016, this Court by order dated 30.1.2019 had dismissed appeal filed by revenue upholding order passed by Tribunal. 6. Be it stated that Tribunal had deleted addition made by Assessing Officer. It may also be stated that penalty was imposed following addition made by Assessing Officer. Imposition of penalty by Assessing Officer was interfered in appeal against which present 2 of 3 11. os itxa 1771-17.doc appeal arises. 7. In view of fact that quantum appeal by revenue has been dismissed by this Court, very foundation for sustaining 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 Commissioner of Income-tax-LTU v. Reliance Industries Ltd
Report Error