TAXAP/168/2003 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 168 of 2003 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Sd/- HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Sd/- ================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================= G.S. NANJEE & SONS - Appellant(s) Versus I.T. OFFICER - Opponent(s) ================================================= Appearance : MR RK PATEL for Appellant(s) : 1, Mr.B.B.Naik for Respondent-Revenue. NOTICE SERVED for Opponent(s) : 1, ================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI TAXAP/168/2003 2/3 JUDGMENT Date : 19/01/2006 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI) 1 Heard Mr.R.K.Patel, learned Advocate for the appellant-assessee and Mr.B.B.Naik, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-revenue. 2 Mr.R.K.Patel has drawn attention to the order of the Tribunal to point out that the Tribunal has followed its earlier decision in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 1982-83 wherein on similar facts the Tribunal had confirmed the penalty. It is very fairly submitted that the aforesaid order of the Tribunal for Assessment Year 1982-83 had been carried before this Court by way of reference being ITR No.87 of 1995, wherein this Court by an order dated 18/1/2006 had answered the question against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to set out the facts and contentions in detail. TAXAP/168/2003 3/3 JUDGMENT 3 For the reasons stated in the order dated 18/1/2006 in Income Tax Reference No.87 of 1995 it is held that the Tribunal was justified in confirming the penalty of Rs. 31,156/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961. The question is accordingly answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 4 The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (D.A.Mehta,J) (H.N.Devani, J) m.m.bhatt