SRI. SADASHIV RAO,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 5(1), BANGALORE

The assessee has raised several grounds but Learned AR of the assessee submitted that as per these grounds, this is the only effective grievance of the assessee that the AO and CIT (A) were not justified in levy of penalty of Rs. 18.52 Lacs u/s 271 (1) (c).

Regarding this issue, it was submitted by the learned AR of the assessee that the copy of notice issued by the AO on 09.12.2009 u/s274 r.w.s. 271 of the I T Act is available on pages 1 and 2 of the paper book and she pointed out that as per this notice, the allegation of the AO is not clear as to whether the allegation is about concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. She placed reliance on the tribunal order rendered in the case of Shri Ramesh Mysore Anantha Swamy vs. ITO in dated 10.06.2020, copy available on pages 3 to 8 of the paper book and she pointed out that in this case, the tribunal has under similar facts followed the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory, 218 taxman 423 and held that under these facts, the imposition of penalty cannot be sustained and deleted the same. In reply, learned DR of the revenue supported the order of CIT (A) and placed reliance on the tribunal order rendered in the case of P M Abdulla and submitted that he will file a copy of the same in the course of the day but till 4 PM on 27.08.2020, no such judgment was filed and hence, we proceed to decide the appeal without waiting for that judgment copy because as per the learned AR of the assessee, the issue involved is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory (Supra).

We have considered the rival submissions. We find that in the facts of the present case as per which, the allegation of the AO is not clear as to whether the allegation is about concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, the tribunal order cited by the learned AR of the assessee and in turn the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory (Supra) is squarely applicable and the learned DR of the revenue did not file the copy of the tribunal order having been rendered in the case of P M Abdulla. Hence, by respectfully following the judgments cited by the learned AR of the assessee, we delete the penalty.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed.