Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Kailash Courier Pvt Ltd on 14 August, 2015

Author: Soumitra Pal

Bench: Soumitra Pal

ORDER SHEET

                                 G.A.No.2600 of 2015
                                         With
                                  ITAT 110 OF 2015
                         IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                           Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax)
                                    ORIGINAL SIDE



                 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-2, KOLKATA
                                                                    Versus
                                              M/S KAILASH COURIER PVT LTD

 BEFORE:

 The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMITRA PAL

 The Hon'ble JUSTICE MIR DARA SHEKO

 Date : 14th August, 2015.


                                    For appellant/revenue : Mrs. Smita Das De,Advocate



                             The Court : Since it is submitted by Mrs.Das De, learned

     advocate for the appellant that though a copy of the application was served on the

     assessee it has come back with the endorsement "the addressee moved", the

     learned advocate-on-record for the Ministry of Law and Justice is directed to

     affirm and file affidavit of service on the next date of hearing.

            Heard Mrs.Smita Das De.

     The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law.

            1.     Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned

                   Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the penalty of Rs.28,55,160/-

                   levied under Section 271(1)(c) by erroneously observing that with the

                   introduction of Section 271-AAA of the Act in relation of search and
                                                 2
                        seizure, Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) was not applicable even

                        when the Assessing Officer had not specifically mentioned about the

                        said explanation.

               2.       Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law,

                        explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) would still continue to coexist in

                        the statute despite the introduction of Section 271-AAA of the Act,

                        these two penalty provisions being mutually exclusive and hence

                        penalty can be imposed under either of the provisions based on

                        separate criteria and ending with difference leviable rate and

                        computation mandate.

               Let paper books be prepared and filed within eight weeks from date and

         copy of the same along with the notice of appeal and gist of this order be served

         upon the respondent/assessee after ascertaining its present address within the

said period.

The application being G.A.No.2600 of 2015 is disposed of. Let the matter appear as "For Hearing" in the Combined Monthly List of December, 2015.

(SOUMITRA PAL, J.) (MIR DARA SHEKO, J.) ssaha AR(CR)