Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9335-DB ITA No. 100033 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.100033 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. THE PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BELAGAVI. - APPELLANTS (BY SRI. THIRUMALESH M.M. AND SMT. ROOPA R.A, ADVOCATES)
AND: M/S NIRANI SUGARS LTD., KULAKI CROSS, MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT. (PAN: AABCN 2166 J) - RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS SERVED)
THIS ITA FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI IN ITA NO.126/PAN/2018, DATED 01.04.2022 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A AND CONFIRM THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) DATED 05.09.2014 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BELAGAVI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AT ANNEXURE-C & ETC.
THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.08.04 11:44:56 +0530
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9335-DB ITA No. 100033 of 2022
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
The appeal has been filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act challenging the order passed in I.T.A. No. 126/PAN/2018 relating to assessment year 2004-05. It is noticed that the tax effect in the appeal in terms of the memo dated 29.07.2025 is Rs.1,01,46,103/- raising the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether omission of the Assessing Officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income, makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when the Assessing Officer has recorded his ‘satisfaction’ in the order of assessment that since the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his total income, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately, thereby clearly putting the assessee to notice, the grounds which he has to meet specifically in the penalty proceedings?
Whetherthe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that since the Assessing Officer ha snot struck out the irrelevant part of the notice u/s 274 r/w/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961,
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9335-DB ITA No. 100033 of 2022
the notice is faulty, when it is merely a technical mistake curable under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 considering the fact that the Assessing Officer has recorded his ‘satisfaction’ in the order of assessment prior to the initiation of penalty proceedings that since the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his total income, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately?
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in deciding the validity of the penalty notice issued in the absence of a specific ground on the issue not having been raised by the assessee respondent before the Assessing Authority or in the appellate proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) nor the Tribunal?
Learned counsel for the appellants has filed a memo which reads as under: “That the appellant has filed the above appeal challenging the ITAT order. As per the Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 the above matter falls under the Below Monetary Limit, i.e., 2 crore and the tax effect is Rs.1,01,46,103.. Hence the matter needs to be withdrawn as per the Circular.”
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9335-DB ITA No. 100033 of 2022
Copy of the circular dated 17.09.2024 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes is enclosed. In the light of the subject matter of the appeal being below monetary limit in terms of the Circular, the proceedings cannot be continued. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed off.
The substantial questions of law raised above are kept open to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings.
Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE
Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE
BVV, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 50