THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI.H.D.PRAKASH

PDF · subscribers
ITA/311/2009HC KarnatakaKAHC01038630200915 June 2015Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the submission that identical questions of law were involved in a previous appeal (ITA No.744/2008) which was also dismissed. Therefore, no substantial question of law remained to be answered.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that set aside a penalty. The ITAT had held that the penalty was not attracted as the revised return disclosing additional income was filed voluntarily and not due to detection by the department.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty is leviable when a revised return is filed voluntarily before detection by the department, and the correctness of the ITAT's reliance on previous case law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)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.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR ITA NO.311/2009

BETWEEN:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

NO.55/1, SHILPASHREE,

VIDYARANYA COMPLEX,

VISHVESHWARANAGAR,

MYSORE- 570 008

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

INCOME-TAX,

CIRCLE-I, HASSAN. …APPELLANTS

(BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, STANDING COUNSEL)

AND:

SRI.H.D.PRAKASH SREE TRADERS, B.M.ROAD, HASSAN. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.A.SHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 30- 01-2009 PASSED IN ITA No.1054/BANG/2008, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT BENGALURU IN ITA NO.1054/2008, DATED 30-01-2009 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, HASSAN, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, VINEET SARAN J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal was admitted on 18.12.2010 on the following two substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the penalty levied was liable to be set aside as the revised return filed belatedly disclosing additional income was not an account of detection by the department and therefore there was no conclusion to attract penalty provision?

(ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suresh

Chandra Metal 251 ITR 9 which had confirmed the order passed in 241 ITR 124 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Sri.Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd., Vs. CIT 168 ITR 705 which has been reversed by the Apex Court in K.P.Madhusudha Vs. CIT 251 ITR 99 in view of the subsequent amendment to Section 271 of the Act?

2.

Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Sri.A.Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent have stated that identical questions were involved in ITA No.744/2008, which appeal has been dismissed by this Court at the Admission stage itself vide judgment dated 14.09.2009 and in such view of the matter, it has been jointly submitted that no Substantial Questions of Law now remain to be answered by this Court.

3.

Since submission has been jointly made by learned counsel for the parties, following the view taken by this Court in ITA No.744/2008 disposed of on 14.09.2009, this appeal stands dismissed as no substantial question of law is required to be answered in this appeal.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

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 →