THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI BELIMATHA MAHA SAMSTHANA SOCIO

PDF · subscribers
ITA/573/2007HC KarnatakaKAHC01042608200704 June 2012Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the original assessment order, which determined the additional tax liability, had been set aside by the same court in a previous appeal filed by the assessee. Consequently, the penalty, being a sequel to the assessment, was also automatically set aside.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that confirmed a penalty levied under Section 217 of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was related to the assessment year 2001-2002, stemming from the assessee claiming additional expenses as deductible.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty levied under Section 217 survives when the underlying assessment order has been set aside by a higher court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 217

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2012 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. MANOHAR ITA No.573/2007 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE C.R. BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE – 17(2) C.R. BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. … APPELLANTS (BY SRI.K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: SRI. BELIMATHA MAHA SAMSTHANA SOCIO CULTURAL & EDUCATIONAL TRUST, 6162, INDIRANAGAR NELAMANGALA, BANGALORE. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI A. SHANKAR, ADV.) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 9.11.2006 PASSED IN ITA NO.3676/BANG/2004 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 PRAYING TO (I) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN (II) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.3676/BANG/2004 DATED 9.11.2006 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER & CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(2), BANGALORE.

THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, SHYLENDRA KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - JUDGMENT I.A.I/2008 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of 86 days delay in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed along with the application, delay of 86 days is condoned and the application is ordered. 2. Respondent is served and represented by Sri A. Shankar, learned counsel. 3. This appeal is filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short ‘the Act’) by the Revenue, insofar as the order relates to levy of penalty under Section 217 of the Act in the proceedings for the assessment year 2001-2002 resulting in the original assessment order dated 29.8.2002 determining the additional tax liability and also mulcting the assessee with penalty for having claimed additional expenses as deductible expenditure than the actual expenditure etc. for disclosing the receipt and expenditure in the books of accounts.

3 4. It is now submitted that assessment was subject matter of appeal and the matter had reached this court by way of appeal at the instance of the assessee and this court had occasion to set aside the order determining the additional tax by way of assessee’s total income and therefore in this view of the development, the penalty, which is only a sequel to the assessment proceedings, is now set aside automatically. 5. Therefore, this appeal does not survive for consideration, in view of the development in ITA No.101/2004 decided on 8.3.2010 and in this view of the matter, this appeal is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE NG*

More judgments on Section 217

All 41 judgments and leading authorities on Section 217 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →