SMT. GURUSHARAN KAUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/381/2011HC KarnatakaKAHC01082309201119 November 2018Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,K.NATARAJAN4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the second and third substantial questions of law were covered by a previous judgment. Consequently, these questions were answered in favour of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an ITAT order upholding the levy of penalty. The appeal was admitted to consider substantial questions of law regarding the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the penalty when the respondent failed to provide a clear finding on concealment or inaccurate particulars and failed to record satisfaction in the assessment order.

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(1)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 AT BENGALURU

ON THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

INCOME TAX APPEAL No.381 of 2011

BETWEEN

SMT. GURUSHARAN KAUR, No.119, 9TH MAIN, ARASAPPA COMPLEX, IDEAL HOME TOWNSHIP, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BANGALORE – 98. ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI CHYTHANYA K.K., ADVOCATE)

AND

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), BENGALURU.

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 22/06/2011 PASSED IN ITA No.1190/BANG/2010, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 2006, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22/06/2011 PASSED BY THE ITAT IN ITA No.1190/BANG/2010, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

Heard.

2.

The appeal was admitted to consider the following three substantial questions of law: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable Tribunal was right in law in upholding the levy of penalty under section 271 (1) (c) of Income Tax Act, 1961?

2.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable Tribunal was right in law in upholding levy of penalty when the Learned Respondent has

failed to give a clear finding as to whether the Appellant is guilty of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income?

3.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable Tribunal was right in law in upholding levy of penalty when the Learned Respondent has failed to record his satisfaction of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars in the assessment order?”

3.

It is submitted that the second and third substantial questions of law are covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER vs. MANJUNATH COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY reported in (2013) 359 ITR 565. Hence, following the said judgment, the second and third questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

4.

In view of holding the second and third substantial questions of law in favour of the assessee, the first substantial question of law would not arise for consideration. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

SD/-

SD/- JUDGE

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 →