THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT (A) vs. SHRI. HARSHVARDHAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA/137/2020HC KarnatakaKAHC01022562202005 June 2023Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that the ITAT's decision was covered by a previous judgment of the same court. The questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that set aside penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 271B of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT had found the penalty notice for Section 271(1)(c) to be vague and that the rules did not prescribe specific books for civil contractors for Section 271B.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) was specific enough, and whether the absence of prescribed books for civil contractors invalidates the penalty under Section 271B.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 271B,Section 44AB,Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

- 1 -

ITA No. 137 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 137 OF 2020 BETWEEN:

1.

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIT (A) CENTRAL CIRCLE C.R.BUILDING QUEEN’S ROAD BENGALURU-560 001

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) C.R.BUILDING QUEEN’S ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 …APPELLANTS

(BY SHRI. SUSHAL TIWARI, STANDING COUNSEL) AND:

SHRI. HARSHVARDHAN NO.168/B, GROUND FLOOR 6TH B CROSS, 1ST N BLOCK NEAR SAGAR FAST FOOD RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560 010 PAN-AJHPM 1729J …RESPONDENT

(BY SHRI. S. ANNAMALAI, ADVOCATE)

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 29.01.2020 PASSED IN ITA NO.412/BANG/2019, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR

Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

ITA No. 137 of 2020

2011-2012 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO. 412/BANG/2019 DATED 29.01.2020 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012 ANNEXURE-E AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU AND ETC.,

THIS ITA, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated January 29, 2020 in ITA No.412/Bang/2019 passed by the ITAT1, Bengaluru, for A.Y.2011-12 has been admitted to consider following questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the instant case by holding that notice issued for levy of penalty does not specifically mention the ground that is it for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income without appreciating that Tribunal ought to have seen that as the case involves both concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the penalty proceedings were rightly

1 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

- 3 -

ITA No. 137 of 2020

initiated by issuing notice as prescribed in section271(1)(c) of the Act?

2.

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the penalty levied under section 271B of the Act by holding that the Rules does not prescribe list of books of accounts to be maintained by a Civil Contractor when the assessee had failed to maintain accounts and get it audited as required under section 44AB of the Act and Tribunal failed to notice that assessee admitted in the return of income filed subsequent to the issue of notice under section 153A of the Act regarding sale receipts?

2.

Heard Shri Sushal Tiwari, learned standing counsel for the Revenue and Shri S.Annamalai, learned advocate for the respondent-assessee.

3.

Shri Tiwari, in his usual fairness, submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is covered against the Revenue by decision of this court in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory2. His submission is placed on record.

2 [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka)

- 4 -

ITA No. 137 of 2020

4.

In the circumstance, the following; ORDER (i) Appeal is dismissed; and (ii) Questions of law are answered in favour of assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

AV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 38

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →