Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA
Before: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini
आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:- These three assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 arise against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata’s orders; all dated 01.09.2016, passed in case No.288-290/CIT(A)-10/R/36/15-16/Kol upholding Assessing Officer’s action(s) imposing identical penalty of ₹12,400 each, in proceedings u/s. 272A(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
-46/Kol/2017 AYs 11-12, 13-14 &14-15 Sh Sanjay Mehta Vs. ACIT, Rg-36, Kol. Page 2 2. Both the Learned Representatives state at the outset that all the three instant cases raise sole substantive issue of correctness of both the lower authorities’ identical action penalizing the taxpayer u/s. 272A(2)(c) of the Act on account of his alleged failure to answer / furnish necessary information to the Assessing Officer in response to section 133(6) notice. The said common notice dated 10.09.2015 sought assessee’s necessary information from the assessee seeking details of alleged bogus long term capital gains and short term capital loss in all three assessment years as per the DGIT(Inv) Kolkata’s investigation. Both the lower authorities imposed the impugned penalty from 07.10.2015 alleging default of 124 days till the identical penalty order(s); all dated 08.12.2016 @ ₹100/- per day as upheld in lower appellate proceedings.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. Learned Department Representative strongly supports both the lower authorities’ action. He reiterates the fact that assessee had not filed the relevant details in furtherance u/s. 133(6) notice which attracts that the impugned penal action as per the Act. We find no merit in the Revenue’s argument. The fact remains that the assessee had furnished the necessary information available to him on 09.10.2015 explaining therein that his return filed contained all the relevant information including that of computation of long term capital gains as sought for by the Assessing Officer. He had further asked for the investigation report coming from the DGIT (Inv) Wing to the Assessing Officer. It is assessee’s said reply which has invited the impugned penal action. We see no substance to uphold the impugned penalty in these circumstances as the fact that assessee had already filed necessary computation details of its capital gains at the first instance itself gone unrebutted from the Revenue side.