THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. SRI V LAKSHMINARAYANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/466/2014HC KarnatakaKAHC01036028201406 March 2015Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the Tribunal had set aside the imposition of penalty by following a judgment of the High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax & another –vs- Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565. The Court found no justification to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal. However, the Court acknowledged that the Revenue had preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the said High Court judgment, which was still pending. Liberty was reserved to the Revenue to revive the present appeal in the event of their success in the Supreme Court. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal, with the aforementioned liberty.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, comprising the Commissioner of Income Tax-III and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Bangalore, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This appeal challenged an order dated 05/06/2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 873/Bang/2010. The ITAT's order had set aside the imposition of a penalty. The assessment year in question was 2004-05. The Revenue's appeal was filed against the respondent, Sri V. Lakshminarayana.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the imposition of penalty, considering the prevailing legal position. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal's order was erroneous. The Revenue relied on the principle that the Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalty was based on a judgment of the High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax & another –vs- Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565. The Revenue submitted that an appeal against this High Court judgment was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Revenue sought liberty to revive the present appeal if they succeeded in the Supreme Court. The Respondent did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2015

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN

AND

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

ITA NO 466 OF 2014

BETWEEN

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001

2.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2) BANGALORE .

... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. E I SANMATHI, ADV.)

AND

SRI V LAKSHMINARAYANA NO.968, 17TH MAIN 14TH MAIN, BANASHANKARI II STAGE, BANGALORE 560 070

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. A SHANKAR & SRI. M LAVA, ADVS.)

This ITA is filed Under Sec.260-A of Income Tax Act 1961, arising out of order dated:05/06/2014 passed in ITA No. 873/Bang/2010, for the Assessment Year 2004-05.

THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, VINEET SARAN J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The Revenue has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the Tribunal which has set aside the imposition of penalty following a judgment of this Court passed in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax & another –vs- Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory in (2013) 359 ITR 565. Therefore, we do not see any justification to interfere with the impugned order and allow this appeal. However, it is submitted that the Revenue has preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the said judgment of this Court and it is still pending. In the event of the revenue succeeding in the appeal, liberty is reserved to the revenue to revive this appeal. With the said observation, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/- TL

JUDGE

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →