2015 (12) TMI 1181 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that - The issue stands covered by the judgments delivered in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central-I, Kolkata vs. Amardeep Singh Dhanjal 2013 (2) TMI 291 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT and Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-III, Kolkata vs. Brijendra Gupta 2015 (7) TMI 451 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT the manner in which the income was derived has also been disclosed and the assessee has thereafter paid the tax and the applicable interest, thus all the requirements of the clause were met by the assessee and, therefore, the correct view of the matter is taken in allowing the immunity and upholding the view of the CIT appeals and setting aside the order of penalty passed by AO - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Typographical error in the question, Application of Explanation 5 of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Judgments delivered in favor of the assessee

The judgment delivered by the High Court of Calcutta addressed the issue of a typographical error in the question formulated at the time of admission of the appeal. The respondent's senior advocate pointed out the error, which was not disputed by the appellant's advocate. The corrected question pertained to whether the Tribunal erred in applying the provisions of Explanation 5 of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and modifying the penalty order for specific assessment years. The respondent's advocate argued that the issue was covered by previous judgments in favor of the assessee, specifically referring to unreported judgments from 2013 and 2015. The Court considered the arguments presented by both parties and concluded that the issue was indeed covered by the previous judgments delivered in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the question was answered in the negative, against the revenue and in favor of the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.