Case Details

Citation(s)
2014 SLG 1970 2014 SLD 1970 (2014) 364 ITR 186
Calcutta High Court
IT APPEAL NO. 119 OF 2012 I.T.A.T. NO. 199 OF 2012, MARCH 21, 2014
GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA AND TAPASH MOOKHERJEE, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Gourav Goenka

v.

Assistant Commissioner of IncomE tax

Law:

Section:

JUDGMENT Tapash Mookherjee, J. - The present appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is directed against an order dated March 22, 2012, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal "B" Bench, Kolkata, in I.T.A. No. 981/Kol/2011 dismissing an appeal preferred by the assessee. 2. The facts and circumstances briefly stated are as follows : The appellant, Shri Gourab Goyenka, an individual, filed his income-tax return for the assessment year 2007-08 claiming deduction of Rs. 8,00,000 (rupees eight lakhs only) allegedly paid by him on account of interest. His case was selected for scrutiny. Appropriate notice was issued. After a few dates fixed by the Assessing Officer, the appellant appeared through his authorised representative and confessed to have made a mistake in claiming the aforesaid deduction. He submitted a revised return and paid the applicable tax. The Revenue, however, considered that it was a case of intentional and deliberate attempt on the part of the appellant to evade tax. Hence, a proceeding for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act was initiated which culminated in an order imposing penalty of a sum of Rs. 2,25,338 (rupees two lakh twenty-five thousand three hundred thirty-eight only). An appeal filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - XVII, Kolkata, was dismissed. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, which has been dismissed on March 22, 2012, which is under challenge before this court. The following question was pressed. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have considered that in cases involving imposition of penalty one principle which was always to be kept in mind that every addition in assessment could not automatically make out a case for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income." 3. Learned advocate for the appellant argued that all kind of errors in the income-tax return and/or all kinds of inaccurate claims in the return do not ipso facto amount to intentional concealment attracting penalty. Under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act and the Assessing Officer as well…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492