M/S KOMARLA HATCHERIES vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV

PDF · subscribers
ITA/200/2009HC KarnatakaKAHC01031065200910 July 2013Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.S.INDRAKALA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the appellant-assessee was absent and unrepresented on multiple occasions, including the current date. Consequently, the court had no option but to dismiss the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal challenging a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was affirmed by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal. The appeal was listed for admission multiple times.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c). However, the appeal was dismissed due to non-prosecution by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2013 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B S INDRAKALA ITA No.200 of 2009

BETWEEN:

M/S. KOMARLA HATCHERIES 172, KAVI LAKSHMEESHA ROAD V V PURAM BANGALORE – 560 004 REP. BY P S NANDA KUMAR MANAGING PARTNER

… APPELLANT

[By M/s. Ganesh Rao & K Venugopala Raju, Adv. - Absent]

AND:

1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – IV CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS QUEENS’ ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001

2 THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF

INCOME TAX, CIRCLE – 9

MALLESWARAM

BANGALORE – 560 003

… RESPONDENTS

[By Sri K V Aravind, Standing Counsel]

2 THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 28.01.2009 PASSED IN ITA NO.1148[B]/BNG/2008 AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR. J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short ‘the Act’] is by the Assessee seeking to raise questions regarding validity or otherwise of levy of penalty of Rs.81,600/- under section 271[1][c] of the Act, which penalty has come to be affirmed by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal also.

2.

Though the matter has appeared for admission time and again ever since 28.05.2009 and had been adjourned on more than couple of occasions for want of representation on behalf of the appellant – assessee, today also when the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant.

3.

In the circumstances, we are left with no choice but to dismiss the appeal for non prosecution.

4.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for non prosecution.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

AN/-

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 →