VEENA ESTATES P.LTD. vs COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX MUMBAI CITY-IX,MUMBAI.

Judgment text excerpt

ITXA-302-2002.docx Digitally signed by LAXMIKANT LAXMIKANT GOPAL GOPAL CHANDAN CHANDAN Date: 2025.01.31 lgc 15:31:08 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 302 OF 2002 Veena Estate Pvt. Ltd., ] Conwood House, ] Gen. A. K. Vaidya Marg, ] Goregaon (East) Bombay – 400 063 ] …Appellant VERSUS Commissioner of Income-Tax ] Mumbai City IX, Mumbai. ] …Respondent __________________________________________________________ A PPEARANCES - Ms Aarti Vissanji, a/w Mr S. J. Mehta, for the Appellant. Mr Devvrat Singh, for the Respondent. __________________________________________________________ CORAM : M.S.Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. RESERVED ON : 29 January 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 31 January 2025 JUDGMENT (Per MS Sonak J):- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Appeal was admitted on 14 September 2004 on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the Tribunal erred on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law in reversing the order of the CIT(A) and confirming the penalty of Rs.33,34,096/- (Rupees Thirty three Lacs Thirty Four Page 1 of 15 ITXA-302-2002.docx Thousand Ninety Six only) levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act?” 3. The Appellant tried to raise additional grounds in support of this Appeal. However, a detailed order dated 11 January 2024, passed by G. S. Kulkarni and Jitendra Jain, JJ, did not allow this. 4. Ms. Aarti Vissanji, submitted that the Appellant had neither concealed any fact nor furnished any inaccurate particulars. She submitted that withdrawal of money from the partnership firm M/s. Nirmal Enterprises and the consequent reduction in capital balance to Rs.17,45,000/- was reflected in the capital accounts and the income return. She sub