Mr. Shourav Sen vs. I.T.O., Ward 61(3), Kolkata

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Mr. Shourav Sen, filed his Return of Income (ROI) in response to a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, declaring a total income of Rs. 1,24,73,100/-. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) accepted the return income as per the ROI filed in response to the notice under section 148. However, the AO initiated penalty proceedings on the ground that the entire quantum of income was disclosed only after the notice under section 148 was issued. The AO levied a penalty of Rs. 40,46,997/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by this penalty, the assessee approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, but could not succeed as it was held that since the return was filed only in response to the notice under section 148, the penalty was exigible.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the findings of the Assessing Officer that mens rea to evade tax has been demonstrated.
• 2. Whether the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the Assessing Officer's conclusion that the appellant had concealed the particulars of income and in confirming the levy of penalty.
• 3. Whether the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the appellant had filed a return of income declaring true and accurate particulars of income and no concealment of income was established.
• 4. Whether the Assessing Officer erred in computing the quantum of penalty by not excluding the tax payable on income for which tax had been deducted at source (TDS) and for which foreign tax credit was granted.
• 5. Whether the penalty order, as upheld by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), is bad in law and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Meenakshisundaram Balamurugan Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Dindigul

• Ram Garhia Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-63(1), New Delhi

  Delhi Bench ‘F’, New Delhi benchAY 2014-15Allowed

• H Venkatesh Reddy Vs. The Income Tax Officer

  'C' Bench, Bangalore benchAY 2015-16Allowed

• DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi Vs. FJM Cylinders Pvt. Ltd

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2015-16Dismissed

• AMIT GUPTA (HUF) Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER

  DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI benchAY 2013-14Partly Allowed

• Dimple Bhatia Batta vs. National Faceless Appeals Centre

  Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi benchAY 2018-19Allowed