TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 1006
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an income of Rs.22,55,800/- from long term capital gains arising out of the sales of shares. On this capital gains, the petitioner also deposited the tax @ 10% on the income of Rs.22,55,800/-. Similarly, for the assessment year 2002-03, the petitioner declared his income at Rs.40,49,093/- which also included long term capital gains arising out of sales of shares of Rs.40,40,600/- in which the petitioner deposited the tax @ 10%. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer required the assessee to furnish various details of the share transaction and also to prove its genuineness. The assessing officer, upon examining the matter, found that no purchase and sale of shares ever took place in the assessment year 2001-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act read with explanation 4(c) and accordingly filed an application for rectification of the mistake before the Settlement Commission, praying that the Commission may rectify the mistake in calculating the minimum penalty amount. The Settlement Commission dismissed the rectification application. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the orders of the Settlement Commission as well as the consequential orders passed by the assessing officer, has filed the writ petition praying for the quashing of the orders. We have heard at length Sri Subham Agarwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Govind Krishna, the learned counsel for the Income Tax Department. The learned counsel for the petitioner submit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....][Commissioner (Appeals)] [or the Commissioner] in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person-- (a) ...... (b)........... (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or [***] furnished inaccurate particulars of [such income, or] (d)........ he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty,-- (i)...... (ii)..... (iii)in the cases referred to in clause (c) [or clause (d) [in addition to tax, if any, payable] by him, a sum which shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed [three times], the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of the concealment of particulars of his income [or fringe benefits] or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income [or frin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....theless the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The reason is not far to see. Under Clause (iii) of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty payable is the minimum amount calculated which shall not exceed three times. In the instant case, the Settlement Commission, after calculating the minimum amount of penalty further reduced it by 50%, that means, half of the amount of minimum penalty payable, whereas the penalty payable ranges from minimum to a maximum of three times. The penalty could not be reduced below the minimum penalty. In the instant case, the Settlement Commission has exercised its discretion by reducing the penalty amount by 50%. Consequently, even if we have to proceed on the basis of the calculation as preferre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tate of U.P. and others, 2010 (10)SCC 677, the Supreme Court held:- "The power under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and supervisory in nature. It is not issued merely because it is lawful to do so. The extraordinary power in writ jurisdiction does not exist to set right mere errors of law which do not occasion any substantial injustice. A writ can be issued only in case of a grave miscarriage of justice or where there has been a flagrant violation of law. The writ court has not only to protect a person from being subjected to a violation of law but also to advance justice and not to thwart it. The Constitution does not place any fetter on the power of the extraordinary jurisdiction but leaves it to the discretion of the....