SRI SANJAY MEHTA,KOLKATA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 46/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 July 2018AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished the necessary information available to him and had also requested the investigation report. The Tribunal held that there was no material to indicate bogus transactions and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty.

What were the facts?

The assessee was penalized under Section 272A(2)(c) for alleged failure to furnish information in response to a Section 133(6) notice. The notice sought details of alleged bogus long-term capital gains and short-term capital loss. The penalty was imposed at ₹100 per day for 124 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty imposed under Section 272A(2)(c) for non-compliance with a Section 133(6) notice was justified when the assessee had provided available information and requested further details.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 272A(2)(c),Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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.

1.

-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.

3.

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.

More judgments on Section 272A(2)(c)

All 114 judgments and leading authorities on Section 272A(2)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →