2011 (10) TMI 655

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g the penalty of ` 12,01,438 for assessment year 1995-96 and ` 7,19,922 for assessment year 1995-96, imposed by the Assessing Officer. Since the issue is common in both the years under consideration, for the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this consolidated order. 2. The assessee is engaged in offering consultancy to the clients who are both domestic as well as overseas clients. It claimed deduction under section 80-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") @ 50% of the entire foreign receipts and restricted the total claim to the gross total income. The Assessing Officer, originally, processed the return of income under section 143(1)(a) of the Act and thereafter reopen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... notice and, hence, the provisions of section 271(1)(c) r/w Explanation-1, are attracted. He further submits that a plain reading of section 80-O, demonstrate that the issue is not a debatable issue. 5. Learned Counsel, Mr. Vijay Mehta, on behalf of the assessee, submitted that the penalty has been levied under section 271(1)(c) on the ground that the assessee has furnished incorrect particulars. Referring to the provisions of section 271(1)(c), he submitted that the explanation in question applies to the cases where the charge is not that the assessee has concealed particulars of income. Coming to the merits, he submitted that the issue was a debatable issue and the first judgment was rendered by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court on 13th ....