THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SAMAJA SEVA MANDALI

PDF · subscribers
ITA/237/2024HC KarnatakaKAHC01056173202423 September 2025Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal, noting that a connected appeal challenging the remand of assessment was dismissed on grounds of maintainability due to the monetary limit. Consequently, the penalty proceedings arising from the same assessment would also not be maintainable.

What were the facts?

The appeal concerns the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arising from an addition made on a wrong claim of exemption under Sections 11 & 12. The ITAT had remitted the issue of penalty back to the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the ITAT was correct in remitting the penalty issue back to the AO, considering the addition was based on a wrong claim of exemption. The court also considered the maintainability of the appeal based on monetary limits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 270A,Section 11,Section 12,Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38176-DB ITA No. 237 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 237 OF 2024 BETWEEN:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS, 6TH FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, P. KALINGA RAO ROAD, BENGALURU-560027.

2.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER SIXTH FLOOR, 6TH FLOOR UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE P. KALIGA RAO ROAD BENGALURU-560027. …APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, ADV.)

AND:

SAMAJA SEVA MANDALI NO.1, CHENNAMMA TANK, T R NAGAR, BANGALURU-560028 PAN: AAETS3845H REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. ANNAMALAI S., ADV.)

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 15.04.2024 PASSED IN ITA NO.45/BANG/2024, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-2019, PRAYING TO

Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38176-DB ITA No. 237 of 2024

FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE; ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO. 45/BANG/2024 DATED 15.04.2024 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018- 2019 ANNEXURE-A CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BENGALURU AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

Heard learned counsel Sri.Aravind V. Chavan for appellants and learned counsel Sri.Annamalai.S., for respondent. Perused the entire appeal papers.

2.

This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘1961 Act’) raising the following substantial question of law: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was correct in remitting back the issue of levy

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38176-DB ITA No. 237 of 2024

of Penalty under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the file of the Assessing Officer by ignoring the fact that the addition was made on the wrong claim of exemption under sections 11 & 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2018-19, without acquiring the immovable property through a proper sale deed?”

3.

Today, the connected appeal in ITA.No.236/2024 wherein the same order was under challenge is dismissed on the ground of maintainability of the appeal as the monetary limit is less than Rs.2 Crores.

4.

In the instant case, the order of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of 1961 Act is in question. When we have dismissed the appeal challenging the remand of assessment for fresh consideration, the penalty proceedings arising out of the same would not be maintainable.

5.

In view of the remand order and in view of the dismissal of the appeal filed against the remand for

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38176-DB ITA No. 237 of 2024

reassessment, the substantial question of law raised in the present appeal would no more survive for consideration. Accordingly, appeal stands rejected.

Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0

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 →