Assessing Officer issued reopening notice for relevant assessment years on ground that assessee claimed depreciation on leased assets even though it was not owner of the assets. The\u00a0 Assessing Officer also passed penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessee\u00a0 has filed\u00a0\u00a0 Settlement petition before the Settlement Commission. under section 245C and sought determination of its taxable income. The petition was allowed and order under section 245D(1) determining additional income and annulled penalty levied by Assessing Officer.\u00a0 In writ by the Revenue,\u00a0 Single Judge held that reasoning of Settlement Commission was vague, and in absence of evidence before Settlement Commission, order granting immunity from penalty and prosecution was an illegal order and\u00a0 matter was remanded to Settlement Commission. Division Bench affirmed the order. On appeal the Court held that\u00a0 in Commission’s order that immunity from prosecution and penalty was granted after noting that assessee realized that when adhering to RBI guidelines of accounting of lease income there was an error in not disclosing full lease rental receipts as per income tax law and assessee had offered additional income under various heads not considered by Assessing Officer. Since immunity from penalty and prosecution was granted based on fact that assessee placed material and particulars before Commission as to manner in which income pertaining to certain activities was derived and had sought to offer such additional income to tax, High Court ought not to have interfered with order of Commission and thus, order of High Court remanding matter to Commission was to be set aside. Order of High Court is set aside. \u00a0(AY. 1994-95 to 1999-2000)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 245H : Settlement Commission-Power-Grant immunity from prosecution and penalty-Order of High Court remanding the matter to Settlement Commission to determine fresh, the question as to immunity from levy of penalty and prosecution is set aside. [S. 245C, 245D, 271(1))(c), Art. 136] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-39525","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-ahv","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39525","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=39525"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39525\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":39526,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39525\/revisions\/39526"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39525"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39525"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39525"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}