Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
NO.55/1, SHILPASHREE,
VIDYARANYA COMPLEX,
VISHVESHWARANAGAR,
MYSORE- 570 008
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?
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.
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