PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-13, KOLKATA vs. SARIKA DUGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITAT/178/2024HC CalcuttaWBCHCO002152202406 November 2024Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, after perusing the order of the Tribunal, found that the Tribunal had granted relief in favour of the assessee by taking note of the factual position of the case and the penalty imposed of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The Court observed that there was no substantial question of law involved in the appeal for them to interfere. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-13, Kolkata (the revenue) has filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 16.11.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (the Tribunal). The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2013-14 and challenges the Tribunal's decision to allow the assessee's appeal and quash the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty amount in dispute is Rs. 1,50,000/-. The revenue contends that the assessee was in default for not disclosing true and correct income but suo motu offered concealed income from the sale of penny stock during reassessment proceedings. Notice was served on the respondent (assessee), and an affidavit of service was filed, but no one appeared for the respondent.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law to allow the appeal of the assessee by quashing the order of penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c)? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law to delete the penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- without considering that the assessee was in default for not disclosing the true and correct income for the assessment year in question, but had suo motu offered the concealed income (LTCG) on sale of penny stock for taxation during reassessment proceedings? Contentions of the revenue: The revenue argued that the Tribunal was not justified in quashing the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and deleting the penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/-. They contended that the assessee had failed to disclose the true and correct income for the assessment year but subsequently offered concealed income from the sale of penny stock during reassessment proceedings, which should not absolve them of the penalty.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ORDER

OD – 41 ITAT/178/2024 IA NO: GA/1/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-13, KOLKATA VERSUS SARIKA DUGAR

BEFORE: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM

AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 6th November 2024. APPEARANCE: Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … for appellant.

This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 16.11.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘A’ Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No.363/Kol/2023 for the assessment year 2013-14. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:-:- (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law to allow the appeal of the assessee by quashing the order of penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c)? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law to delete the penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- without considering the fact that the assessee was in default in not disclosing the true and correct income for the assessment year in question but have suo moto offered the

2 concealed income (LTCG) on sale of penny stock for taxation during reassessment proceedings?

Notice has been served on the respondent and affidavit of service has been filed. None appears for the respondent. We have perused the order passed by the Learned Tribunal and we find that the Learned Tribunal has granted relief in favour of the assessee by taking note of the factual position of the case noting that the penalty imposed of Rs.1,50,000/-. Thus, we find there is no substantial question of law for involved in this appeal for us to intefere. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed and the connected application stands closed.

(T. S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.)

(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)

S. Kumar

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →