Case Law Details
Pr. CIT Vs National Stock Exchange (Bombay High Court)
A careful and conjoint reading of the two provisions i.e. Sections 105 and 108 would therefore make it clear that imposition of penalty is to be proceeded separately as a separate proceeding. Merely because in the assessment order the Assessing Officer comes to a conclusion that the assessee had failed to collect the STT or had failed to pay such STT to the credit of the Central Government, it would not ipso-facto lead to imposition of penalty. Once such a conclusion is reached, the assessee is required to be provided reasonable opportunity of hearing and during the hearing if the assessee can prove that there was reasonable cause for such failure, no penalty shall be imposed.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
1. Heard Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned standing counsel, Revenue for the appellant; and Mr. J.D. Mistri learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.Atul K. Jasani, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly “the Act” hereinafter) against the order dated 4th April, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench “B”, Mumbai (briefly “the Tribunal” hereinafter) in Security Tax Appeal No. 01/Mum/2013 for the financial year 2006-07.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
